1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,360
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in one of the top

2
00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:05,519
Speaker 1: business and civil rights cases of its nine month term,

3
00:00:05,559 --> 00:00:07,720
Speaker 1: and it was one of those rulings that somewhat open

4
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:10,959
Speaker 1: to interpretation. An issue was whether the City of Miami

5
00:00:11,039 --> 00:00:13,960
Speaker 1: could sue Wells Fargo in Bank of America for allegedly

6
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:19,200
Speaker 1: discriminatory lending practices. Miami said those practices contributed to urban blight,

7
00:00:19,400 --> 00:00:22,040
Speaker 1: costing the city tax revenue and forcing it to spend

8
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:26,040
Speaker 1: more on police and fire services. Justice Stephen Brier's opinion

9
00:00:26,160 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 1: said cities had the right to sue under the federal

10
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 1: Fair Housing Act, but Brian went on to say that

11
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:33,559
Speaker 1: Miami had to show that it was directly harmed by

12
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 1: a discriminatory practice, a standard that the dissenting Justice has

13
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:40,120
Speaker 1: said the city wouldn't be able to meet. So what

14
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:43,040
Speaker 1: does this important decision mean. Our guests are two people

15
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:45,880
Speaker 1: who have been following the case closely. David Gams of

16
00:00:45,920 --> 00:00:48,880
Speaker 1: the Constitutional Accountability Center. He helped file a brief that

17
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: urged the Court to let the suit go forward, and

18
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:54,320
Speaker 1: Matthew Nelson of the law firm Warner, Northcross and Judd.

19
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 1: He filed the brief backing the backing the banks for

20
00:00:57,080 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 1: d r I, which is a trade group that represents

21
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:04,560
Speaker 1: defend lawyers. David, your group is calling this ruling a victory.

22
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,560
Speaker 1: What did you see in justice to Briar's opinion that

23
00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:11,600
Speaker 1: you liked well. So, I think this is an extremely

24
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 1: important ruling that says cities can sue told banks accountable

25
00:01:15,640 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 1: for housing discrimination. Uh. The Court, you know, in line

26
00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: with what it has said in prior cases, said under

27
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:27,600
Speaker 1: the Fair Housing Act, there's a very broad, uh group

28
00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:31,000
Speaker 1: of people who can get into the courthouse door to sue.

29
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:34,240
Speaker 1: That includes both those who have been directly injured as

30
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,800
Speaker 1: well as um as others like cities. And the court

31
00:01:39,560 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 1: rested it's it's holding on the fact that, Uh. In

32
00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:45,560
Speaker 1: I think four past cases, the Court had affirmed a

33
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 1: very broad view of who could sue under under the

34
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:53,000
Speaker 1: Fair Housing Act, and the Court said Congress had ratified

35
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:56,040
Speaker 1: that and so based on that reasoning, the city could sue.

36
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 1: So this is a kind of a very important affirmation

37
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:03,240
Speaker 1: that said, it's play a crucial role in vindicating the

38
00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: promise of racial equality that the Fair Housing protects. Matthew,

39
00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:10,360
Speaker 1: it wasn't a total win for cities, and it's going

40
00:02:10,440 --> 00:02:13,840
Speaker 1: back to the lower court so how do you consider

41
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:17,200
Speaker 1: this ruling. Well, I think that the ruling is a

42
00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:20,200
Speaker 1: win for the civil justice system in that it reaffirms

43
00:02:20,280 --> 00:02:24,280
Speaker 1: that liability only attaches to the direct consequences of misconduct,

44
00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:27,120
Speaker 1: which is the principle that our legal system has held

45
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:30,120
Speaker 1: to for more than a century. And the idea here

46
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:35,600
Speaker 1: is that um that the alleged discriminatory lending here has

47
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:38,679
Speaker 1: to have directly caused injuries to the City of Miami

48
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:42,000
Speaker 1: for the City of Miami to recover damages. So, although

49
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:44,040
Speaker 1: the court has said that the City of Miami can

50
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: maintain the lawsuit, they've remanded for the lower courses determine

51
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,000
Speaker 1: whether or not the City of Miami's injuries are direct.

52
00:02:51,919 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: And here, if you imagine that, for example, you have

53
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:56,560
Speaker 1: a neighbor who has allowed party that keeps you up,

54
00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:59,919
Speaker 1: resulting and you giving an ineffective presentation to a client,

55
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,320
Speaker 1: the results in lost business that results in decreased revenue

56
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:07,399
Speaker 1: for you and layoffs of your employees. You see that

57
00:03:07,720 --> 00:03:09,639
Speaker 1: at the end of that change, you wouldn't want the

58
00:03:09,960 --> 00:03:11,639
Speaker 1: You wouldn't want to be able to have someone say

59
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:14,120
Speaker 1: I consume my neighbor for the party that kept me up.

60
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:16,600
Speaker 1: And here too, that's the question now that the Court

61
00:03:16,639 --> 00:03:18,840
Speaker 1: has to consider. Is the City of Miami too far

62
00:03:19,480 --> 00:03:24,680
Speaker 1: detached from the actual discriminatory alleged discriminatory practices to be

63
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:29,720
Speaker 1: able to actually recover damages? David Justice Thomas, in dissent,

64
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,080
Speaker 1: said that the majority opinion, he said, quote leaves little

65
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 1: doubt that neither Miami nor any similarly situated plaintiff can

66
00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:40,600
Speaker 1: satisfy the rigorous standard for approximate cause that the Court adopts.

67
00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:43,160
Speaker 1: That's that's that's I think what Matt was talking about.

68
00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:46,600
Speaker 1: Their um is Justice Thomas right? And if he is right,

69
00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:50,400
Speaker 1: how is this a victory for your side? I don't

70
00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: think he's right. I think Justice Thomas and the other

71
00:03:53,480 --> 00:03:56,920
Speaker 1: dissenters would have just said these cases should be dismissed

72
00:03:56,920 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 1: in the court did not do that. They they said

73
00:04:00,760 --> 00:04:03,280
Speaker 1: that the lower court had applied the wrong standard. But

74
00:04:03,320 --> 00:04:07,480
Speaker 1: they said go back and uh, you know, and and

75
00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 1: flash out what proximan cause means in this context. And

76
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:15,040
Speaker 1: you know, it's important. It's not just a standard that

77
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: applies the same throughout, but it's uh sensitive to uh

78
00:04:20,640 --> 00:04:24,080
Speaker 1: the particular statute and under the Fair Housing Act. I think,

79
00:04:24,279 --> 00:04:28,280
Speaker 1: you know, the same, the same idea that those who

80
00:04:28,279 --> 00:04:31,119
Speaker 1: should be able to suit of vindicate the act is

81
00:04:30,640 --> 00:04:34,000
Speaker 1: is was written by Congress to be brought and and

82
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:37,839
Speaker 1: and those same principle sort of playing when you're analyzing

83
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:41,680
Speaker 1: proximate cause. But that's an issue that the UH didn't

84
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: didn't decide, and that's an issue that I expect the

85
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:48,800
Speaker 1: parties will sort of continue to fight about. It's an

86
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:52,080
Speaker 1: issue that may come back at a at a further step.

87
00:04:52,080 --> 00:04:56,279
Speaker 1: But going forward, these cases will will continue and the

88
00:04:56,279 --> 00:05:00,680
Speaker 1: parties will be going back to court to argue UH

89
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,440
Speaker 1: what proximate cause means under the Fair Housing Act? Matt,

90
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:07,960
Speaker 1: were you surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the

91
00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:13,520
Speaker 1: Courts for Liberals in the majority um not based on

92
00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:16,880
Speaker 1: the the oral argument. After the oral argument, it seemed

93
00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:20,919
Speaker 1: that that the city was likely to prevail on the

94
00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:24,919
Speaker 1: um on the standard that used to be called prudential

95
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: standing UM. But the with regard to I think that

96
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:32,120
Speaker 1: one of the reasons that the Chief Justice did feel

97
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:34,640
Speaker 1: comfortable joining the majority is the fact that they did

98
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 1: not determined that the foreseeability analysis that the Eleventh Circuit

99
00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:42,279
Speaker 1: had adopted with regard to proximate cause was sufficient, but

100
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: instead did remand with instructions that they look to the

101
00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:48,760
Speaker 1: standards that have been imposed by the court in other

102
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:52,839
Speaker 1: cases that typically require that sort of direct connection for

103
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:58,360
Speaker 1: proximate cause that seems to be lacking here. David, how

104
00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:02,720
Speaker 1: common are suits like this by by cities and are

105
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:06,799
Speaker 1: there any other types of suits that could be affected

106
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 1: by this ruling in addition to suits by cities. Well, so,

107
00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:13,159
Speaker 1: I mean there is a history of suits by cities

108
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 1: under the Fair Housing Act. The Court rested its analysis

109
00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:20,320
Speaker 1: very heavily on on I think in the nineteen seventy

110
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: nine case involving a suit by the city that I

111
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,440
Speaker 1: think they're also similar suits that are similar to the

112
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:31,799
Speaker 1: Miami case that are going on in other jurisdictions across

113
00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 1: the country. And you know it, it's sort of it's

114
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:39,479
Speaker 1: it reaffirms that it's not only those who are who

115
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:42,920
Speaker 1: are direct victims of discrimination, but cities have an interest

116
00:06:42,960 --> 00:06:49,120
Speaker 1: in enforcing fair housing laws and preventing and redressing discrimination

117
00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:53,640
Speaker 1: that that harms the cities themselves. So, you know, I

118
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 1: think it it kind of is a restatement that cities

119
00:06:58,800 --> 00:07:01,159
Speaker 1: are important actors and have an important role to play

120
00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:05,919
Speaker 1: in enforcing the promise of equality. That the laws protect

121
00:07:06,080 --> 00:07:09,400
Speaker 1: matt About a minute here, when the case was argued,

122
00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan asked about restaurants and dry cleaner is injustice?

123
00:07:13,560 --> 00:07:18,040
Speaker 1: So do mayor about corner grocers? Is there a possibility

124
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:21,840
Speaker 1: that this opens banks up to a novel approach to

125
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 1: hold them accountable for indirect harm from discriminatory practices. And

126
00:07:27,520 --> 00:07:30,120
Speaker 1: that's the exact issue that's been remanded to the Eleventh

127
00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: Circuits and the lower courts to determine. And that is

128
00:07:33,920 --> 00:07:36,680
Speaker 1: the reason why we do not believe that the courts,

129
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,760
Speaker 1: like the courts are likely to ultimately adopt approximate cause

130
00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:43,440
Speaker 1: standards that allows for that, because those sorts of injuries

131
00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:46,560
Speaker 1: are just too too remote. Um and that's what the

132
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:51,400
Speaker 1: doctrine approximate cause he's intended to prevent. I want to

133
00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:54,200
Speaker 1: thank our guests. That was Matthew Nelson of the law

134
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 1: firm Warner Norcross and David Gains of the Constitutional Accountability

135
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:01,320
Speaker 1: Center talking about the Supreme Courts this vision yesterday on

136
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:05,760
Speaker 1: city suits against banks under the Fair Housing Act