Thompson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
220 F.3d 241 (2000)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
A group of African American public-housing residents (the residents) (plaintiffs) brought suit against the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (the housing authority) (defendant), contending that Baltimore’s public-housing system was racially segregated. The parties later entered into a consent decree. Section XII of the consent decree prohibited the new construction of public housing in areas with high concentrations of racial minorities. Hollander Ridge, a public-housing development owned by the housing authority, was located in an area with a high concentration of racial minorities. The housing authority was aware prior to the consent decree that Hollander Ridge required extensive, very costly repairs. After the consent decree was entered into, the housing authority stated that it would be economically inviable to rehabilitate the Hollander Ridge development, such that new construction of public housing was needed at the Hollander Ridge site. Because new construction of public housing at the Hollander Ridge site would violate Section XII of the consent decree, the housing authority filed a motion seeking to modify Section XII. The district court granted the motion, and the residents appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traxler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.