Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. et al.

United States Supreme Court
135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015)


The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Department) (defendant) was a state agency that distributed federal tax credits to developers to build low-income housing. The Department determined which developers would be distributed credits based on specific selection criteria that the Department had established. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (ICP) (plaintiff) was a nonprofit corporation that aided low-income families in obtaining housing. ICP claimed that the Department’s selection criteria had resulted in a disproportionately low allocation of tax credits to predominantly black neighborhoods as compared to white neighborhoods. Based on this allocation, ICP argued that the Department’s conduct was unlawful in that it created a disparate impact on black neighborhoods. ICP sued the Department for violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Specifically, ICP claimed that the Department had violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), which prohibited an entity from otherwise making a dwelling unavailable to a person because of the person’s race, color, or national origin. ICP also alleged that the Department had violated 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a), which similarly prohibited an entity involved in real-estate transactions from discriminating against a person because of race, color, or national origin. The district court found in favor of ICP, and the Department appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Alito, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.