Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
4 F. Supp. 2d 757 (1998)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
A group of African American public-housing residents (plaintiffs) brought suit against the Chicago Housing Authority (the housing authority) (defendant), contending that Chicago’s public-housing system was racially segregated. The district court entered a judgment order that required the housing authority to desegregate its public-housing system. Specifically, the order stated that if the housing authority received federal funds for public housing, the funds were to be spent equally in general areas (i.e., areas with a White population of 70 percent or more) and limited areas (i.e., areas with a non-White population of 30 percent or more). The Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program provided federal funds to housing authorities for the purpose of revitalizing distressed public-housing projects. The housing authority received funds through the HOPE VI program. However, because the distressed public-housing projects were all located in limited areas, the housing authority contended that the HOPE VI funds were to be spent only in limited areas. This contention was incompatible with the judgment order, which required equal spending in general and limited areas. Hence, the housing authority requested that the district court issue a ruling stating that the judgment order did not govern the use of the HOPE VI funds. The district court took the matter under advisement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aspen, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.