Of the three Supreme Court decisions this last term that I believe did not follow the letter of the law (but rather, invented it), the most troubling one (for me) was the Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, where SCOTUS green-lighted a novel relatively new legal theory called “disparate-impact.” While the case reasonably could have been decided either way based on the merits, the result is that the scope of the majority ruling was written in such a manner that it will vastly expand use of “disparate-impact” in all law, which is the troubling part.
Ordinarily, decisions (in my feeble opinion) should be written narrowly to settle specific constitutional issues raised through litigation for those with standing; what was done here was to anoint a heretofore unknown legal theory, and to do so in such a way that encourages the liberal application of “disparate-impact” throughout all government.
Bottom line: if there are racial and / or economic differences in communities, the Feds can now dictate a remedy to the locals.
To further accelerate this, Glorious Imperial Maximum Dear Leader announced (from the balcony of the White House?) the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) decree (no Act of Congress Required), shortly after the SCOTUS decision.
This means not only has it become vogue to erase national borders (like, you know, with Mexico), now we can erase local borders by nullifying local zoning ordinances when “non-homogenous” racial disparity results. To “prove” the racial disparity, of course you need lots of data. And this can happen over 50 years’ time (i.e. zoning ordinances set long ago can be amended to correct the disparity that evolved over time). To me, this sounds a lot like the federal judicial bussing efforts of the 1970’s (that resulted in riots in Boston), and ultimately was dropped by the Progressive Left Social Justice Engineers.
Should you be living at 66th and Bancroft in Oakland, or in Vallejo? And so, if the government so decides that Vallejo is not racially homogenous vis-à-vis South Oakland, then the zoning laws can be unilaterally changed by a judge to force Vallejo development or redevelopment, and redirect the dearth of low-income section 8 housing grants into your neighborhood.
There is an aspect to racial disparity wherein people will self-segregate, but for non-racial reasons.
I choose to self segregate from areas where there is high crime, choosing instead to live in a suburb that has low crime. The Texas Housing SCOTUS ruling and AFFH decree means now that I can be proven to be a racist (after-the-fact) if my neighborhood does not have the correct federally mandated “racially balanced” makeup. The remedy could be high density Section 8 in my neighborhood, or zoning restrictions that disallow development in the corn fields next to my neighborhood, limitations on expanding county roads to force racially correct in-fill into large blue cities, driving the middle class people away from the suburbs (or further out into the wilderness with large commutes).
And of course, redirecting federal funds to the “big blue cities” who can better centrally plan your and my life choices for us.
Where this will absolutely, positively will, not be applied, is in Washington D.C.
Southeast DC and Northwest DC will somehow remain among the highest-segregated place in the US.
You see, the laws and social engineering are for the little people.