United States Of America V City Of New York And New York City Housing Authority

Clearinghouse case EE-NY-0191. On May 31, 2001, the United States filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New ... Additional Detail Found in Record.

Clearinghouse case EE-NY-0192. On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit against the City of New York under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in ... Additional Detail Found in Record.

Clearinghouse case EE-NY-0193. On March 12, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ... Additional Detail Found in Record.

Clearinghouse case EE-NY-0190. On June 18, 2002 the United States filed a lawsuit under Title VII in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New ... Additional Detail Found in Record.

If legal scholar Richard Epstein is right, then the New Deal is wrong, if not unconstitutional. Epstein reaches this sweeping conclusion after making a detailed analysis of the eminent domain, or takings, clause of the Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In contrast to the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the eminent domain clause has been interpreted narrowly. It has been invoked to force the government to compensate a citizen when his land is taken to build a post office, but not when its value is diminished by a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Epstein argues that this narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the takings clause and the political theory that animates it. He develops a coherent normative theory that permits us to distinguish between permissible takings for public use and impermissible ones. He then examines a wide range of government regulations and taxes under a single comprehensive theory. He asks four questions: What constitutes a taking of private property? When is that taking justified without compensation under the police power? When is a taking for public use? And when is a taking compensated, in cash or in kind? Zoning, rent control, progressive and special taxes, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy are only a few of the programs analyzed within this framework. Epstein’s theory casts doubt upon the established view today that the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government. Throughout the book he uses recent developments in law and economics and the theory of collective choice to find in the eminent domain clause a theory of political obligation that he claims is superior to any of its modern rivals.

This book examines national fair housing policy from 1960 through 2000 in the context of the American presidency and the country's segregated suburban housing market. It argues that a principal reason for suburban housing segregation lies in Richard Nixon's 1971 fair housing policy, which directed Federal agencies not to place pressure on suburbs to accept low-income housing. After exploring the role played by Lyndon Johnson in the initiation and passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Nixon's politics of suburban segregation is contrasted to the politics of suburban integration espoused by his HUD secretary, George Romney. Nixon's fair housing legacy is then traced through each presidential administration from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton and detected in the decisions of Nixon's Federal Court appointees.