The judicial activism juggernaut, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), announced that it will be suing the Trump administration to veto new changes the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has implemented to the Fair Housing Act.
The alterations were made in the interest of protecting quality of life and staving off multiculturalism in the suburbs, which Trump hopes will help win suburban votes.
A document released by HUD Secretary Ben Carson dealing with the administration’s interpretation of the Disparate Impact Rule significantly raises the threshold of evidence needed for non-whites to sue for discrimination under the clause to explicit prohibitions on race or sex.
Under the Obama administration, HUD was weaponized further as a means for forcing “diversity” in white-majority suburbs. The result of this has been the exodus of blacks out of metropolitan areas to the suburbs, which has caused violent crime to migrate with them. Many suburbs are now more dangerous than cities.
Diane Yentel, the Jewish president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, took to twitter to lash out at HUD’s rule change, declaring that it makes it “nearly impossible for POC to challenge discriminatory effects in hsg and beyond.”
Self-described “anxious Jew” and Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board member Abraham Gutman shrieked that “This is a huge fucking deal.”
Aside from a small group of Jewish activists, there doesn’t seem to be much general pushback against the new regulations. While many suburban whites like to virtue signal in favor of the latest left-wing racial and political fads, they are often on the front line of combating racial integration in their own children’s schools and neighborhoods, a trend colloquially known as NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard).
While surveys show most people are happy with the racial mix of their neighborhoods as they are, fringe elements backed by plutocratic money continue to use federal courts to dictate unpopular social engineering prescriptions from above.
The ACLU, which was founded by anarcho-communist Roger N. Baldwin, has specialized in this kind of tyrannical policy making. During the 1960s, Jewish litigation groups found that federal judges, often educated in elite cosmopolitan values, were significantly more likely to support Constitutionally dubious challenges and oppressive laws than democratically accountable legislators.
In the case of HUD’s new Disparate Impact Rule changes, the likelihood that it will survive an activist challenge in court is almost 0%.
In 2015’s Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., a 5-4 Supreme Court majority led by Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Anthony Kennedy found that plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits had an absolute right to demonstrate disparate impact liability based on “unconscious prejudices” and “disguised animus” — specifically what Carson’s rule update undermines.
The partisan challenge now will be for lawyers to be able to get an expedited injunction against HUD before Trump can use it for his campaign.