Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights

558 F.2d 1283 (1977)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
558 F.2d 1283 (1977)

  • Written by Noah Lewis, JD

Facts

The Clerics of St. Viator, a religious order, owned 80 acres of property in the Chicago suburb of the Village of Arlington Heights (village) (defendant). The Clerics decided to build low- and moderate-income housing on its land with the help of Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) (plaintiff), a nonprofit developer experienced in building low-cost housing through obtaining federal subsidies under § 236 of the National Housing Act. Because the land was zoned for single-family homes, MHDC petitioned the village for rezoning to allow for connected townhouse units. The petition described the plan for affordable housing and how federal subsidies required racially integrated housing. In contrast to the rest of Chicago, the village was almost totally White, and 40 percent of those eligible for federal housing subsidization were not White. The village board of trustees voted to deny the petition and asserted the housing could be built on other properly zoned land. MHDC and three Black individuals sued in federal district court, alleging the rezoning refusal violated equal protection and the Fair Housing Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), prohibiting denying housing because of race, and 42 U.S.C. § 3617, prohibiting interference with exercising rights under the Fair Housing Act. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the equal-protection claim—requiring discriminatory intent, not mere discriminatory effect. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for a determination of the Fair Housing Act claim, which the district court had not addressed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Swygert, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership