## Facts

- A landlord rented an apartment to an unmarried couple with a child after requiring separate applications that stated no children could reside in the unit.
- The landlord provided a one-year lease containing a “no children” clause and added a handwritten “trial basis” amendment tied to that clause.
- The tenants later became pregnant with a second child and continued in the unit after the lease term ended, initially on a month-to-month basis.
- The landlord renewed the lease in May 2017; the tenants testified the renewal provided stability as they prepared to care for a newborn.
- The mother gave birth by emergency C-section on May 25, 2017.
- About two weeks later, the landlord served an eviction notice citing violation of the “no children” clause, demanding that the family vacate by July 31, 2017, and threatening legal action.
- The family requested additional time, but the landlord refused; the eviction process caused severe emotional and physical stress during postpartum recovery and newborn care.
- The United States brought an enforcement action alleging familial-status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported submitting punitive damages to the jury under the FHA standard requiring at least reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.
2. Whether the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive under substantive due process.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of the landlord’s post-trial motion to set aside or reduce punitive damages.
- The evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find at least reckless or callous indifference to the tenants’ FHA rights, supporting punitive damages.
- The punitive damages award ($60,000) was not grossly excessive in light of the due-process guideposts, including reprehensibility, ratio, and comparable penalties.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FHA, punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant acts with at least reckless or callous indifference to federally protected housing rights, including the right to be free from familial-status discrimination.
- When reviewing punitive damages for due process, courts apply the guideposts of: (1) reprehensibility, (2) punitive-to-compensatory ratio, and (3) comparison to civil penalties for similar misconduct.
- Single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratios are generally more likely to satisfy due process; a roughly 4:1 ratio may be permissible where the conduct is blameworthy and the harm includes non-economic injury.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that a landlord’s enforcement of a “no children” policy against a family with known children supported punitive damages under the FHA and that a $60,000 punitive award, roughly four times the compensatory damages, complied with constitutional due-process limits.


United States v. Rupp, 68 F.4th 1075 (8th Cir. 2023)