Hills v. Gautreaux

Background

Six Black tenants and applicants sued the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging CHA had deliberately placed most public housing in Black neighborhoods and that HUD funded and assisted that system. The District Court found CHA’s practices unconstitutional and ordered changes including building units in predominantly white areas; the Seventh Circuit later held HUD had violated the Fifth Amendment and federal civil-rights law by knowingly supporting CHA’s discriminatory program.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a federal court could order HUD to take remedial action outside Chicago’s city limits. The Court explained Milliken v. Bradley barred interdistrict remedies only when the courts would be restructuring uninvolved local governments, but here HUD itself was found to have violated the law. Because HUD and CHA have authority and funding roles that reach beyond city lines and because housing markets, not municipal borders, define people’s realistic housing choices, a metropolitan-area remedy could be commensurate with the wrong. The Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s remand for the District Court to consider metropolitan relief, but did not require a specific metropolitan plan.

Real world impact

The decision lets district courts consider orders that direct HUD to use its funding and administrative powers to foster housing opportunities in the broader Chicago metropolitan market. Local governments keep statutory roles like commenting on projects, so the ruling permits—but does not mandate—suburban remedies and returns the detailed remedy design to the District Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and White, concurred. He agreed the opinion permits broad HUD-directed remedies and partly criticized Milliken’s limits on federal equitable power.