Fair housing and restraints on alienation

Racial Lines in the Deed: Private Words and Public Enforcement

A discriminatory restraint is a limitation on owning, occupying, selling, or leasing property because of a protected characteristic; the decisive question is whether the restriction comes from private conduct, government action, or both. A racially restrictive covenant is the clearest example: a deed, declaration, or agreement says that property may not be sold, leased, occupied, or transferred to members of a racial group.

The first screen is source:

1. Purely private conduct ordinarily is not governed by the Fourteenth Amendment, because the Amendment requires state action.
2. Government conduct is subject to the Equal Protection Clause. A government seller, landlord, or enforcement agency may not discriminate in housing. A racial classification receives strict scrutiny; a sex classification receives intermediate scrutiny.
3. Judicial enforcement of a private racial covenant is state action. Under the rule of Shelley v. Kraemer, a court may not enforce a racially restrictive covenant, even though private parties created it. The constitutional defect is the government’s enforcement, not merely the private writing standing alone.

Thus, a private deed restriction saying “only members of a specified race may live here” cannot be enforced through a court. A private association cannot obtain a judgment compelling compliance with that racial restriction. The covenant’s presence in a deed does not make it constitutionally enforceable. Conversely, the fact that a private party wrote the restriction does not prevent the Fair Housing Act from applying to the underlying sale, lease, advertisement, or refusal.

The Fair Housing Act independently reaches private housing conduct. Section 3604(c) prohibits making, printing, or publishing a notice or statement indicating a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. The statement can violate §3604(c) even if no sale or lease is completed. A deed, advertisement, application form, or landlord’s written policy may therefore create a statutory problem apart from whether a court would enforce the covenant.

Use this sequence on a fact pattern:

1. Identify the protected characteristic and the property restriction.
2. Ask whether a government actor is refusing, enforcing, or conditioning the transaction.
3. Apply the Fourteenth Amendment if state action exists.
4. Separately ask whether the Fair Housing Act reaches the private or governmental transaction.
5. Treat a racial covenant as unenforceable in court under Shelley, and analyze any separate FHA violation under §3604.

This is closed-book-you must be able to state the state-action distinction, the Shelley rule, and §3604(c)’s prohibition without supplied legal materials.

The Housing Transaction Screen: Coverage, Protected Status, and Tenant Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act overlap, but they do different work.

For a covered sale or lease, §3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of a protected characteristic. Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental, or in services and facilities connected with the dwelling. Section 3604(c) prohibits discriminatory notices and statements. Section 3604(d) prohibits representing that a dwelling is unavailable when it is actually available. Section 3604(e) addresses blockbusting-representing that entry or prospective entry of a protected group will affect property values or neighborhood conditions in order to induce a sale or rental.

The exam’s first discrimination distinction is disparate treatment versus disparate impact:

• Disparate treatment is intentional different treatment because of a protected characteristic. A landlord who tells one applicant, “We do not rent to families with children,” has made a direct statement of disparate treatment.
• Disparate impact involves a facially neutral policy that disproportionately harms a protected group. Under FHA disparate-impact doctrine, the claimant must identify a specific policy and a robust causal connection to the disparity. The provider may defend by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. The claimant may still prevail by showing a less discriminatory alternative that would serve that interest.
• Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a facially neutral government policy generally requires discriminatory purpose, not merely a disproportionate effect. That is a critical difference from FHA disparate-impact analysis.

The Fair Housing Act has narrow exemptions. Under §3603(b), certain single-family transactions and owner-occupied buildings with no more than four independently occupied units may be exempt from most §3604 provisions, subject to detailed conditions such as no broker involvement, ownership limits, and no discriminatory advertising. The exemption does not erase §3604(c)’s restriction on discriminatory notices or statements. A religious organization may in limited circumstances prefer members of its religion, and a qualifying private club may limit occupancy to members, but neither exception authorizes racial discrimination. Housing for older persons may be exempt from the familial-status prohibition if the statutory requirements for 62-and-over or qualifying 55-and-over housing are met.

For a transaction claim, run the questions in this order:

1. Is there a dwelling and a sale, rental, negotiation, advertisement, or related housing service?
2. Is the defendant relying on an FHA exemption?
3. Is the challenged conduct refusal, unavailability, unequal terms, a false statement, discriminatory advertising, blockbusting, or disability discrimination?
4. Is the protected basis race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability?
5. Is the evidence intentional disparate treatment or a neutral policy with disparate impact?
6. If the defendant is governmental, add the Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

For FHA discrimination, a close temporal connection between a protected activity and an adverse action can support an inference of retaliation, but timing alone does not automatically prove causation. A landlord may still act for a genuine, independently documented reason.

Loading diagram…

Retaliatory eviction is an adverse housing action taken because a tenant exercised a protected right or made a protected complaint. Under ordinary retaliatory-eviction doctrine, the tenant generally shows:

1. The tenant engaged in protected activity, such as reporting a legally cognizable housing violation or exercising a statutory tenant right.
2. The landlord knew of the activity.
3. The landlord took an adverse action, such as serving a termination notice, refusing renewal, increasing rent, or beginning eviction.
4. The protected activity was a motivating cause of the action.

Close timing may create a presumption under a state retaliation statute, but the exact presumption and rebuttal rules vary. The landlord may rebut by proving a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason, such as a genuine lease violation, sale of the property, or documented business reason. A pretextual claim of breach does not defeat retaliation liability.

The FHA’s federal anti-interference rule, §3617, prohibits coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of FHA rights. A tenant’s good-faith opposition to discriminatory housing practices, assistance with an FHA complaint, or request for a reasonable accommodation may therefore support a federal retaliation or interference claim. A complaint solely about an ordinary repair is not automatically an FHA claim; it may instead be protected under a state retaliatory-eviction statute.

A disability-accommodation problem requires a separate analysis. Under §3604(f)(3)(B), the tenant must establish:

1. A disability covered by the FHA.
2. A requested accommodation in a rule, policy, practice, or service.
3. Necessity of the accommodation to give the person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
4. Reasonableness of the accommodation.

The provider must grant the accommodation unless it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or require a fundamental alteration. An assistance animal may be a reasonable accommodation even though the building has a no-pets rule; it is not treated as an ordinary pet merely because the lease uses that label. A provider ordinarily may not charge a pet fee for an assistance animal.

Do not confuse a reasonable accommodation with a reasonable modification. An accommodation changes a rule or practice, such as allowing an assistance animal or assigning an accessible parking space. A modification is a structural change, such as installing a ramp or grab bars; its cost and restoration obligations are analyzed separately under §3604(f)(3)(A). If a disability or need is not obvious, the provider may request reliable information necessary to verify them, but may not demand irrelevant medical details.

The direct-threat limitation in §3604(f)(9) permits denial when the person’s tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, and the threat or damage cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation. Generalized fear, stereotypes, or speculation is insufficient.

The Transfer Gate: Total Bars, Limited Priority, and Timely Choice

A total restraint on alienation absolutely forbids the holder of an otherwise transferable interest from transferring it to anyone, for any time or for an unlimited period. A total restraint on a fee simple is void as contrary to public policy. The owner must be able to alienate the property; a condition that effectively says “this owner can never transfer” is not saved by placing it in a deed or by labeling the consequence a forfeiture.

A restraint can be invalid even when phrased indirectly. “Any attempted sale terminates the estate” may be a forfeiture restraint, but if it leaves no meaningful permitted transfer, it functions as a total restraint. The court examines practical effect rather than the drafter’s label.

A partial restraint permits some transfers but limits their time, method, price, location, or transferees. It is not automatically valid. The restraint must be reasonable in its duration, purpose, and effect. Relevant facts include:

• whether the restraint lasts briefly or indefinitely;
• whether it protects a legitimate interest, such as preserving a narrow family or organizational purpose;
• whether the forbidden transferees form a limited class or effectively include everyone;
• whether the restraint seriously impairs marketability; and
• whether the restraint is narrowly connected to its stated purpose.

A short restriction giving a named person the first chance to buy is ordinarily a partial restraint. An indefinite prohibition on selling to any person outside a broad class may be unreasonable and may operate as a total restraint. A consent clause is also judged by its practical operation; a requirement of consent from one identified person for a limited purpose differs from an unlimited power to veto every transfer forever.

An option and a right of first refusal are both possible partial restraints, but they give different powers.

An option is an irrevocable power to accept an offer to buy or sell property during a stated period. The holder has no duty to exercise it. The optionor cannot revoke the offer during the option period when the option contract is supported by consideration; a separate promise to keep an offer open without consideration is generally revocable, subject to a recognized reliance doctrine.

An option involving land must satisfy the land-sale Statute of Frauds. The signed writing should identify the parties and property and state the price or a sufficiently definite method for determining the price and other essential terms. Exercise must comply strictly with the option’s conditions. The holder must give the required notice before expiration and use the contractually specified method. Unlike the ordinary mailbox rule for some acceptances, acceptance of an option generally is effective when received, not merely when dispatched, unless the agreement provides otherwise.

A right of first refusal, also called a preemptive right, does not allow its holder to force a sale. The owner may keep the property indefinitely. The right becomes operative when the owner decides to sell or receives the type of offer described in the instrument. The holder then receives the first chance to buy, usually on the same price and terms offered by the third party. If the owner sells without first honoring the right, the owner has breached the agreement. The holder does not automatically become the owner; the remedy may be damages or equitable relief depending on the instrument, notice, and circumstances.

The instrument controls the trigger. A right activated by an owner’s “decision to sell” may not be triggered by a gift, mortgage, lease, or involuntary transfer unless the language includes those events. An option, by contrast, is exercised by the holder according to its terms without waiting for the owner to seek a buyer.

Consider this fact pattern:

A private corporation owns an eight-unit apartment building.

A recorded deed restriction states that the apartments may be rented only to members of a specified race.

The corporation refuses to rent an available unit to Jordan because Jordan is not a member of that race.

Jordan asks a state court to enforce the Fair Housing Act and to prevent enforcement of the deed restriction.

The corporation argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply because it is a private owner.

Common errors to avoid:

• Treating a private landlord’s racial refusal as a Fourteenth Amendment violation while overlooking the Fair Housing Act.

• Assuming a four-unit or single-family exemption permits discriminatory advertising when §3604(c) still applies.

• Calling an assistance-animal request a structural modification and applying modification-cost rules to a policy accommodation.

• Treating every complaint before an eviction as federally protected retaliation when an ordinary repair complaint may arise only under state law.

• Calling a right of first refusal an option when the owner, not the holder, must first decide to sell.

Three Pressure Tests: Distinctions That Decide the Result

High-Yield Points - ⚡ Biggest Takeaways

Separate private discrimination from state action, but analyze the Fair Housing Act independently. A racial covenant cannot be judicially enforced, even when private parties created it. An option lets the holder compel a stated sale; a right of first refusal waits for the owner’s decision to sell.