News

New Trump Policy To Weaken Civil Rights Discrimination Law For Housing

President Donald Trump is working on weakening the civil rights-era Fair Housing Act, which protects homeowners and renters from discrimination. 

Housing advocates claim the new policy will make it much more difficult to bring lawsuits claiming discrimination, while conservatives believe the new move would stop insubstantial lawsuits. 

A draft of the Department of Housing and Urban Development rules would target “disparate impact.” Disparate impact are practices in housing that affect a group of protected people more than others even though the rules should apply to everyone equally. This means that to prove discrimination in a lawsuit, plaintiffs don’t have to prove that a company is refusing to make loans to minorities, only that a company has a policy that has a discriminatory aftermath. 

The proposal is set to be announced in August. 

Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter!

A week of political news in your in-box.
We find the news you need to know, so you don't have to.

A recent lawsuit claims Bank of America was treating foreclosed homes in minority neighborhoods drastically poorly. Lawns weren’t mowed, windows were missing, and their entrances weren’t secured. 

Lisa Rice, president of the National Fair Housing Alliance, says she looked at foreclosed properties in more than 70 communities across the country. According to her, all had comparable levels of owner-occupied homes. In response to this lawsuit, she said, “In the white communities that we looked at, the story was completely different. “The grass was mowed, the doors were secure, the windows were not broken, we didn’t see trash and debris.”

Bank of America denies the claims of the lawsuit, stating, “Our commitment to sustainable homeownership for low- to moderate-income and multicultural clients and communities has always been a hallmark of Bank of America.” 

In this case, if the new policy is adopted, plaintiffs would now have to prove that the company’s policies were intended to be discriminatory, whereas before, plaintiffs only had to prove that the policy itself was discriminatory. 

Anacaona Rodriguez Martinez

Recent Posts

After Democrats Agree To Block Ouster Of Mike Johnson, House Speaker Still Faces Hard-Right Rebellion

On Tuesday, House Democrats said they would join the GOP to kill an effort to…

1 hour ago

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs Signs Repeals 1864 Abortion Ban

After Arizona lawmakers voted to repeal the state's Civil War-era abortion ban, the legislation was…

2 hours ago

‘National Enquirer’ Publisher David Pecker Testifies In Trump’s Hush Money Trial

On Friday, former American Media CEO David Pecker concluded his testimony about meetings he had with…

5 days ago

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Motion To Vacate Speakership Is Coming Regardless OF Pressure From Party

On Sunday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) said her motion to vacate the speakership is "coming" regardless…

6 days ago

Federal Trade Commission Votes To Ban Noncompete Agreements

On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned noncompete agreements in a 3-2 vote. The…

1 week ago

California Bill Would Prevent CLEAR Passengers From Line-Jumping At Airports

A proposed bill in California would prohibit security screening company CLEAR from skipping the general…

1 week ago