FHA Rule An Analysis

Analysing the FHA Rule

Issue

Senator Polk of Califoregan has filed suit against the FHA rule. The rule requires local communities benefiting from FHA loans to rebuild the racial composition of their local police forces to reflect the communities’ racial composition. Senator Polk has also filed suit against Congress’ decision to appropriate additional funds to the affected police forces to help them rebuild amidst huge resistance from opposing communities. The senator claims that both the FHA rule and the appropriation are beyond the scope of Congress and the executive branch’s authority. Victor Alvarez, a former lieutenant who lost his job to an African-American as a result of the rule, has also joined the suit. The issue is whether Senator Polk and Alvarez meet the legal criteria for standing under Article III.

The Rule

In Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US. 555 (1992)[footnoteRef:1], the Supreme Court developed a three-prong criteria for establishing standing under Article III in US federal courts. The three criteria are injury in fact, causation, and likelihood of redress.[footnoteRef:2] The plaintiff must prove that they meet all three criteria. Injury in fact requires the plaintiff to prove that they suffered a particularized and concrete injury that is imminent and not merely hypothetical or conjectural.[footnoteRef:3] Particularization implies that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the case and has suffered an injury that is not shared by all citizens.[footnoteRef:4] Further, the injury suffered must be concrete, implying that it results from a violation of an interest – social, environmental, aesthetic, political, or economic – that is protected by statute or the constitution.[footnoteRef:5] [1: Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US. 555 (1992)] [2: Legal Information Institute, “Standing Requirement: Overview,” last modified 2021, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/standing-requirement-overview, para 5] [3: Ibid. ] [4: Ibid., para 6] [5: Ibid. ]

The second criterion of article III standing, causation, requires the plaintiff to prove that the injury they suffered is a result of the defendant’s action.[footnoteRef:6] A plaintiff cannot, therefore, claim standing if the actions they challenge were committed by persons not party to the lawsuit. Finally, the third criterion for standing is the likelihood of redress, which means that the plaintiff would obtain an adequate remedy for their injuries if the court made a favourable decision.[footnoteRef:7] To prove standing, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate that a favourable decision is likely to redress their injuries.[footnoteRef:8] [6: Ibid., para 5] [7: Ibid. ] [8: Ibid., para 6]

In Davis vs FEC, 554 US. 724, 732 (2008),[footnoteRef:9] the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must prove standing before a federal court can begin to consider the merits of a case. Failure to prove standing may result in the court dismissing all claims without deciding on their merits[footnoteRef:10]. [9: Davis vs FEC, 554 US. 724, 732 (2008)] [10: United States Congress, “Article III, Section 2, Clause 1,” Last modified 2023. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/#ALDF_00016941, para 3]

Application

Alvarez’ injury may be regarded as widespread given that thousands of his colleagues may have also suffered some form of injury as a result of the ongoing police rebuilding efforts. However, in Massachusetts vs Environmental Protection Agency, 549 US497, 517, 522 (2007),[footnoteRef:11] the court held that even when injury is widespread, if the plaintiff can show that they suffered concrete injury in a personal way, then injury in fact would hold. The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. Alvarez lost his job because of his race. In so doing, the state violated his rights to equal protection guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the injuries he suffered were concrete, hence meeting the threshold for injury-in-fact as provided in Massachusetts vs Environmental Protection Agency. The injuries are a direct result of the FHA rule enacted by Congress and hence, causality is proven. He would not have lost his job if Congress and the executive had not passed the FHA rule. Finally, the likelihood of redress is met because if the court were to declare that Congress and the executive overstepped their mandate, the rule’s implementation would be halted and Alvarez would most likely get his job back. Thus, Alvarez meets all three requirements for standing under Article III. [11: Massachusetts vs Environmental Protection Agency, 549 US497, 517, 522 (2007)]

On his part, Senator Polk has not suffered any individualized injury as a result of the FHA rule and the subsequent appropriations. In Hollingsworth vs. Perry 570 US, 693, 133 S.Ct.2652 (2013),[footnoteRef:12] the court opened avenues for parties to seek judicial relief on behalf of third parties with whom they shared an agency relationship. Based on Hollingsworth vs. Perry, receivers could seek judicial relief on behalf of their receiverships, elected representatives on behalf of their citizens, and guardians ad litem on behalf of their wards.[footnoteRef:13] The court ruled that state officials authorized by California law to litigate on behalf of the state’s citizens had standing to challenge an amendment in the constitution that defined marriage as a union between a woman and a man. However, the court found that the officials still lacked standing because they were acting as individuals in their private capacity rather than as state officials. [12: Hollingsworth vs. Perry 570 US, 693, 133 S.Ct.2652 (2013),] [13: Justia US Law, “Substantial Interest: Standing,” Last Modified 2023, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/20-substantial-interest-standing.html, para 433]

Based on Hollingsworth vs. Perry, Senator Polk had standing to challenge the FHA rule and appropriations on behalf of Califoregan. However, in this regard, he was acting in his individual capacity rather than as a state official since he did not provide evidence that the people he represented were aggrieved by the rule. Thus, Senator Polk lacked standing to challenge the rule on behalf of Califoregan citizens. A successful challenge requires the plaintiff to show proof of all three elements of injury, causality, and redressability.