Supreme Court Upholds Disparate Impact: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
On June 25, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that the Wall Street Journal has characterized as a "Disastrous Misreading of the Fair Housing Act," ruling that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The consensus of court-watchers predicted an opposite holding. Is the Court’s decision a broad endorsement of the government’s use of disparate impact theory? Our experts discussed the implications of the decision.
Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Mr. Consovoy assists clients on a broad range of litigation and appellate issues primarily before the Supreme Court of the United States and federal appellate and district courts, as well as before federal agencies. Mr. Consovoy represents clients in cases involving constitutional issues, interpretation and enforcement of federal statutes, administrative law, civil rights disputes, and a variety of other civil litigation issues. Mr. Consovoy recently argued two cases—Spokeo v. Robbins and Evenwel v. Abbott—before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Consovoy is a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the 17th Judicial Circuit of Virginia. Mr. Consovoy is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court and was named by Law360 as a “rising star” in appellate law for 2013. Since 2011, Mr. Consovoy has been the co-director of the Supreme Court Clinic at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, where he also is the co-director of the Administrative Law Clinic.
Mr. Consovoy earned his B.A. from Monmouth University, and his J.D. magna cum laude from George Mason University School of Law. Mr. Consovoy is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia bars.
Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Ralph Kasarda joined the Pacific Legal Foundation in July 2007. His primary legal interests are individual rights. He devotes the majority of his time to working on cases in PLF's Equality Under the Law Project.
Mr. Kasarda successfully defended California's ban on racial preferences, Proposition 209, by drafting and filing appellate briefs and presenting oral argument in Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He also successfully argued against North Carolina's use of racial preferences in public contracting in H.B. Rowe Co., Inc. v. Tippett, before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is currently litigating against California's use of racial qualifications for the selection of public officers in Connerly v. State of California. He continues to author and coauthor briefs against the government's use of race for filing in courts around the country, including the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Kasarda received his B.A. in Physical Science and concentration in meteorology from San Francisco State University in 1981. He then served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps and left active duty in 1993. He received his Master of Arts in Education from George Mason University in 1994, and taught high school earth science and geography in Virginia. He returned to school and graduated from the Golden Gate University School of Law where for his academic excellence he received merit scholarships his final two years, and the Environmental Law Award.