United States v. City of Yonkers

856 F.2d 444 (1988), cert. denied in part, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989), and rev'd in part, sub nom. Spallone v United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990)

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

United States v. City of Yonkers

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
856 F.2d 444 (1988), cert. denied in part, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989), and rev'd in part, sub nom. Spallone v United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

In 1980, the United States (plaintiff) sued the City of Yonkers (the city) (defendant) for intentional discrimination in violation of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by segregating low-income housing projects into minority neighborhoods. The court ordered the city to implement remedial measures including a long-range subsidized housing plan. The city had previously agreed to provide sites for 200 public-housing units to receive a $30 million federal Housing and Urban Development grant. The court ordered the city to propose sites and present a plan for the housing, but the city did not comply. After the United States and intervenor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People moved to hold the city in contempt, the parties agreed to a consent decree setting an 800-unit target. The city council approved the decree, and the court entered the decree as a consent judgment. When citizens vehemently protested, the city violated the decree, requested modification, and offered to return the grant. The court refused modification and ordered the city to enact legislation implementing the long-term plan, but the city council voted down a resolution to do so. Ultimately the court held the city and the four council members who voted against the legislation in contempt, subject to a $500 fine per day and jail for each council member and a $100 fine, doubling daily, against the city that would exceed $1 million per day by day 15. The city and council members appealed on multiple grounds.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Newman, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 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