Whether the pleading of an FHA prima facie disparate impact claim must show the identified policy not only has caused the adverse effects on the racial group identified but also has caused that group to be predominantly Black?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case concerns the requirements for pleading a prima facie disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The plaintiff is required to first identify the policy being challenged and next prove through statistical evidence that the application of the policy causes a disproportionate adverse effect on a racial group. The FHA disparate impact claim will not be shown unless the plaintiff points to a specific policy and shows that the policy is causing the statistical disparity. This Court referred to this as the “robust causality requirement.” Texas Dept. of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.,___ U.S. ___, 185 S. Ct. 2507, 2523 (2015) (Texas v. ICP). The Inclusive Communities Project’s (ICP) complaint showed the policy, the disparate impact statistics, and causation. App. 162a, 169a-171a, 187a, 191a192a. The Fifth Circuit held robust causation required ICP to additionally show that Defendants’ “no voucher” policy caused Blacks to be the “dominant group of voucher holders in the Dallas metro area.” App. 29a30a. One judge dissented from the majority opinion. App. 43a. Seven judges joined in the opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. App. 145a. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the pleading of an FHA prima facie disparate impact claim must show the identified policy not only has caused the adverse effects on the racial li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued group identified but also has caused that group to be predominantly Black? 2. Whether the pleading of an FHA prima facie segregative-effect claim version of a disparate impact claim must show the identified policy not only perpetuated racial segregation but also began the existing racial segregation in the community? 3. Whether the pleading of an FHA prima facie disparate impact claim must satisfy a new pleading requirement to show that the impacts are caused by enforcing a previously unenforced policy?