Jim Crow North and Fair Housing Enforcement

Abstract

This article investigates how federal, state, and local government agencies enforce the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) in Northeastern states, which are referred to here as the Jim Crow North. Focusing on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), this study measures the extent to which the thirteen Northeastern states—from Maine to Virginia—decided Fair Housing Act complaints in favor of Black and Latinx Americans from 1989 to 2010.

Part I presents a historical snapshot of fair housing law and policy in the Jim Crow North. Part II examines the federal legal response to residential discrimination and segregation nationwide. Part III explains the theory and methodology for calculating favorable outcomes made by federal, state, and local governments in Northeastern Title VIII complaints. Part IV provides the results of the favorable outcome analysis for Black and Latinx Americans. Part V spotlights New York and New Jersey to better understand their low rates of favorable outcomes in Fair Housing Act complaints. The conclusion discusses the study’s findings and suggests some explanations.

The analysis leads to three key takeaways. First, it reveals considerable variations in favorable outcomes across the Jim Crow North, even between adjacent states with similar demographic traits. Such outcome variations suggest that governmental jurisdictions’ support for Title VIII complainants can differ noticeably and that the region, state, or locality in which a person files a Fair Housing Act complaint makes a difference. Second, Black complainants are most likely to win their Title VIII claims in federal Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). In contrast, Latinx people are most likely to obtain favorable outcomes in federal Region III (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia). Third, Black and Latinx complainants are least likely to win Title VIII claims in federal Region II, which consists of New York and New Jersey. 

Because of this third finding, the Article then explores aspects of law, race relations, and public policy in New York and New Jersey to help explain their low rates of favorable outcomes in Fair Housing Act complaints. Four facts about New York and New Jersey are considered: their comparatively high levels of (1) residential, (2) school, and (3) economic segregation, as well as (4) their lack of local jurisdictions participating in HUD’s Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Our analysis assumes that if subnational governmental decisions primarily represent the demands of people and groups with the most influence at the state and local levels, and if residential, educational, and economic segregation are the preference of many people and groups in New York and New Jersey, civil rights agencies in these states will likely respond by deciding a relatively low percentage of Fair Housing Act complaints in favor of Black and Latinx complainants. Because of data limitations, the analysis cannot directly measure the individual effects of residential, educational, or economic segregation on the decisions of FHAP agencies, so it cannot prove that one or more of these four factors cause Region II’s low favorability rates. Nonetheless, the results suggest that such a causal link is plausible.

Given this conclusion, this Article proposes four recommendations for Region II. First, working closely with HUD, governors, mayors, and business leaders, New York and New Jersey should develop new incentive programs to dramatically increase the number of certified local FHAP agencies. Second, Congress and the current presidential administration should make certain that funds and other resources are available to new local FHAP agencies in New York and New Jersey to enforce the Fair Housing Act effectively. Third, HUD should play an aggressive role in helping all local jurisdictions in New York and New Jersey participate in FHAP, including the drafting of new local fair housing laws that are substantially equivalent to Title VIII. Finally, Congress and HUD should hold all FHAP agencies to a higher standard of enforcement performance in race and national origin Title VIII cases generally. Unfortunately, in light of the re-election of President Donald Trump in 2024, these recommendations must await a future administration and a Congress far more sympathetic toward fair housing rights. There is a reasonable chance that fair housing law and policy in the United States will experience turmoil throughout the remainder of the second Trump administration, and perhaps beyond. Depending on what occurs over the next few years, some of the progress made in equal housing opportunity over the past seven decades is in jeopardy.