“Disparate Impact” is a social justice legal theorem which measures outcomes to standards and practices and determines racial legality.

Example – Under legal interpretation rules of “Disparate Impact” it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens. If a company uses eligible (legal) work authorization status as a requirement on employment applications (when making hiring decisions), and if the use of legal work eligibility is used as a qualifier, and the eligibility (qualification) standards disqualify a protected class (ethnicity) at a disparate rate, then it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens.

The civil rights act(s) guaranteed -through law- equality in opportunity. Disparate Impact guarantees -through legal interpretation- equality in outcome.

Today the Supreme Court upheld (5-4) the application of “Disparate Impact Rules” within housing: regulations, loans, credits, locations and subsidies.  Justice Kennedy was the determining factor.  Thomas Lifson at American Thinker accurately outlines:

[…] As with Obamacare, the Court is engaging in what I propose we call “outcome-based adjudication.”  The majority decides what policy it likes, and then rationalizes it, however clumsily. (link)

The consequences will be VAST and will impact YOU. We will also see more gated communities as developers within municipalities seek to mitigate or remove risk of potentially developing land tracts and ending up challenged in court. Zoning and sub-parcels will be subject to judicial review determining if ‘fair shares’ have been apportioned.

The “intent” of zoning or fair housing rules/regs is no longer good enough; the developer or municipality will have to insure the “outcome”.

[scribd id=269692272 key=key-yfib5AaFrmcyzdObYbaL mode=scroll]