Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Week 12 — Discriminatory Purpose

Facts

  • The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) sought a zoning change from the Village of Arlington Heights to permit the construction of low- and moderate-income racially integrated housing.
  • The Village denied the rezoning request.
  • MHDC alleged that racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the denial.

Issue

Whether a zoning denial that produces disparate racial impact violates the Equal Protection Clause when discrimination cannot be shown to be the sole motivating factor.

Holding

No EPC violation here. MHDC failed to prove discrimination was a motivating factor.

Reasoning

  • Discrimination need not be the sole reason for a state action; the claimant must prove that discrimination was a motivating factor.
  • Factors considered in determining whether discrimination was a motivating factor:
    1. Disproportionate impact — whether the action bears more heavily on specific classes; in rare cases a stark pattern of impact may itself prove purpose.
    2. Historical background — whether there is a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes.
    3. Specific sequence of events — whether the events leading up to the decision spark suspicion.
    4. Procedural or substantive departures — whether the decision-maker deviated from normal procedures or ignored key factors.
    5. Legislative or administrative history — contemporary statements, meeting minutes, or reports from the decision-making body.
  • Burden-shifting framework for proving discriminatory purpose:
    1. Challenger must prove that discrimination was a motivating factor.
    2. The state actor must prove it would have acted anyway, even without the discriminatory motive.
    3. If the state actor successfully persuades the Court it would have acted anyway, the inquiry is over and rational basis applies.
    4. If not, the challenger has successfully proven the discriminatory element; if there is also a discriminatory impact (likely), the appropriate heightened level of scrutiny applies.

Notes

  • Even had MHDC made the prima facie showing, the burden would have shifted to the Village to prove the same decision would have been made without the discriminatory purpose.
  • The five-factor test (often called the Arlington Heights factors) is the workhorse for proving discriminatory purpose under the Washington v. Davis framework.