Law Commons^™

Why Do Landlords Still Discriminate (And What Can Be Done About It)?, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Let's say you have a serious, though not life-threatening, medical condition, such as a non-malignant growth in your back that causes considerable pain and impairs your ability to walk. At first, your doctor tells you there is no cure, but then one day, a new drug specifically designed to eliminate this kind of problem is approved. You take this drug, but notice no change. With your doctor's encouragement, you continue to take the drug, hoping that its cumulative effect will achieve the desired result. Twenty years go by with no relief. Then, your doctor tells you that a much stronger …

Oral Argument In Meyer V. Holley (No. 01-1120), Robert G. Schwemm, Douglas G. Benedon, Malcolm L. Stewart

Law Faculty Advocacy

The matter of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 3, 2002. Professor Robert G. Schwemm argued on behalf of the Respondents. This document is a transcript of the oral argument.

The Future Of Fair Housing Litigation, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article is a revised version of the keynote address I gave at a conference entitled "Where is Fair Housing Headed in This Decade?" sponsored by The John Marshall Law School in the Fall of 1992. As its title implies, the conference focused on the future of fair housing, and my address dealt with certain developments that I felt were not only observable in the early years of the 1990s, but were also likely to be important in the remaining years of this decade.

Many of these developments—such as the growing role of the federal government in fair housing enforcement …

From Washington To Arlington Heights And Beyond: Discriminatory Purpose In Equal Protection Litigation, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

When the Supreme Court decided Washington v. Davis on June 7, 1976, it began a new era in civil rights law. Rejecting the contention that state action is unconstitutional solely because it operates to injure more blacks than whites, the Court held that proof of discriminatory purpose is necessary to establish a claim of racial discrimination under the equal protection clause. In two cases decided the following term—Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. and Castaneda v. Partida—the Court reaffirmed its commitment to the discriminatory purpose requirement, but was badly divided on how to apply the …