## Facts

- Starrett City was a privately constructed, state-subsidized housing complex in Brooklyn, New York, with more than 5,800 rental units.
- The owners and managers used a race-conscious tenant-selection system intended to maintain a specified level of racial integration.
- Applicants were required to disclose race or national origin on application forms.
- Management used fixed racial quotas: applicants were grouped by race, and vacancies were filled to keep a constant racial balance, generally selecting a replacement tenant of the same race or national origin as the departing tenant.
- The system functioned as a ceiling on Black and Hispanic occupancy, producing substantially longer waiting periods for Black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants.
- The United States, through the Attorney General, alleged the practices violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604 by making dwellings unavailable and by imposing discriminatory terms and conditions because of race, color, or national origin.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord violates the Fair Housing Act by using race-conscious tenant-selection procedures to maintain integration when the procedures limit minority access to housing.
2. Whether fixed racial ceilings and resulting longer minority waiting times constitute discrimination “because of race, color, or national origin” under 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

## Decision

- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States and enjoined continuation of the quota system.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the tenant-selection policy violated the Fair Housing Act.
- The court rejected the justification that the quotas were necessary to prevent “white flight” and preserve integration.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Second Circuit’s judgment in place.

## Legal Principles

- The Fair Housing Act prohibits practices that refuse to rent, make housing unavailable, or impose discriminatory rental terms or conditions because of race, color, or national origin.
- Liability under § 3604 may rest on discriminatory effects on housing availability, not solely on proof of hostile motive.
- Race-conscious measures are not automatically unlawful, but they must be limited and justified in a manner consistent with the statute.
- Rigid racial quotas of indefinite duration that maintain a fixed racial balance by restricting minority access are unlawful under the Fair Housing Act.
- Preventing “white flight” does not justify policies that burden minority applicants by delaying or denying access to housing in order to preserve a particular racial composition.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that maintaining integration cannot be pursued through indefinite, rigid racial ceilings that restrict minority admissions; such tenant-selection quotas make housing unavailable to minorities because of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act.


United States v. Starrett City Assocs., 840 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir. 1988)