Case: Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority

1:66-cv-01459 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Feb. 1, 1975

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

BackgroundThis longstanding chase chronicles efforts to stop racial discrimination by the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”).On August 9, 1966, a group of African American public housing residents brought suit against the CHA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, alleged that the CHA had segregated its public housing complexes through discriminatory site selection procedures. They brought suit on behalf of all the approximately…

Background

This longstanding chase chronicles efforts to stop racial discrimination by the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”).

On August 9, 1966, a group of African American public housing residents brought suit against the CHA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, alleged that the CHA had segregated its public housing complexes through discriminatory site selection procedures. They brought suit on behalf of all the approximately 43,000 African American Chicagoans who lived in or had applied to Chicago public housing. The plaintiffs filed the suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that CHA intentionally chose sites for family public housing and adopted tenant assignment procedures in a racially discriminatory manner, which maintained existing patterns of racial residential separation throughout Chicago. The plaintiffs claimed that this violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and right against discriminatory impact protected by Title VI. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the CHA violated these rights by failing to remedy the current housing segregation. The plaintiffs' requested relief included: (1) declaratory judgment that CHA had selected development sites in violation of plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights; (2) a permanent injunction against the racially discriminatory aspects of the public housing system; and (3) an order directing defendants to submit and carry out a plan for selection of future sites to eliminate those discriminatory practices.

In a companion case, Gautreaux v. Romney (66-1460), the plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). In the HUD suit, the plaintiffs alleged that by approving funds for the development plans of the CHA (which violated plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights), HUD was liable for such violations as well. Since HUD's liability depended on plaintiffs' claims against CHA, District Court Judge Richard B. Austin stayed the HUD case until the CHA claims were addressed.

Judgment Order

On March 2, 1967, Judge Austin denied in part and granted in part the CHA's motion to dismiss. 265 F. Supp. 582. Judge Austin denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims regarding the placement of housing development sites. However, he granted the motion to dismiss the claims that the CHA violated the plaintiffs' rights by failing to remedy the current racial segregation. After years of significant discovery efforts on both sides, both parties moved for summary judgment.

Judge Austin granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on February 20, 1969. 296 F. Supp. 907. Specifically, Judge Austin ruled that CHA's actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act with a policy of taking the racial character of the neighborhood into account when selecting sites for public housing development. While Judge Austin did not assert that CHA necessarily harbored a "subjectively racist attitude," he stated that CHA had intentionally maintained a system of public housing which discriminated against African Americans.

On July 1, 1969, Judge Austin entered a judgment order setting out the conditions of the injunction. 304 F. Supp. 736. This order listed procedures that the CHA was to follow when selecting sites for new development, including using census data to ensure areas did not exceed certain minority density maximums. The order also required the CHA to affirmatively desegregate current public housing and to report such efforts to the Department of Justice and the District Court, enjoined current development of housing projects in areas that had high minority density, and required that the CHA alter its development procedures so that aldermen of white neighborhoods could not prevent development in their areas.

Months later, the plaintiffs argued that CHA had failed to fulfill the court's reporting requirements to demonstrate best efforts of compliance. After a series of conferences with Judge Austin, the court entered an order on July 20, 1970 that required CHA to submit a proposal for certain HUD-approved developments with an altered timetable. The CHA appealed this order. On December 16, 1970, the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Judge F. Ryan Duffy) affirmed Judge Austin's order. 436 F.2d 306. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the CHA's appeal on April 19, 1971. 402 U.S. 922 (1971).

After the adjudication of the CHA case, Judge Austin dismissed all claims against HUD on September 1, 1970. The plaintiffs appealed, asserting that their claims against HUD were valid, given their victory against CHA. On September 10, 1971, the Court of Appeals (Judge F. Ryan Duffy) reversed Judge Austin's dismissal, ruling that HUD's approval of the discriminatory housing developments similarly violated plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights. 448 F.2d 731.

On September 11, 1973, Judge Austin ruled that the injunctive relief would be enforced only within the city limits. 363 F. Supp. 690. The plaintiffs appealed. On August 26, 1974, the Court of Appeals reversed, stating that the entire metropolitan area must be involved in the injunction. 503 F.2d 930 (Justice Tom C. Clark). The CHA (with HUD joining) sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed in an April 20, 1976 opinion by Justice Potter Stewart. 425 U.S. 284 (1976). The Court found that no rule prevented the court from ordering correction action beyond a municipal boundary when a constitutional violation had occurred. The plaintiffs and HUD immediately entered into a one-year "letter of intent," in which the parties agreed to investigate the possibilities of metropolitan-wide relief, and the parties attempted to implement the Judgment Order.

Consent Decree

On June 16, 1981, District Court Judge John P. Crowley described progress towards desegregated housing since 1966 as “negligible” and approved a new consent decree between the plaintiffs and HUD. 523 F. Supp. 665. This consent decree provided metropolitan area-wide relief by placing 7,100 individuals in assisted units in new areas (mainly in white suburbs), setting aside authority for 500 Section 8 certificates, reallocating development block grants funds, appointing an outside contractor (chosen by HUD and approved by plaintiffs), and court supervision of further development efforts. A large group of objectors appealed.

On September 30, 1982, the Court of Appeals (Judge Wilbur F. Pell, Jr.) affirmed the consent decree, stating that it was reasonable and did not violate fair housing laws.

Almost immediately, a dispute broke out about the consent decree’s scope. Property developers wanted to use Section 8 funding from HUD to finance a new construction project. But the consent decree prohibited HUD from spending Section 8 funds on developments that would (with other subsidized housing) constitute more than 15% of the total housing in a census tract; here, the new development would represent 18.25% of the relevant tract’s dwelling units. Nevertheless, Judge Marvin E. Aspen allowed the development. In an August 25, 1982 order, Judge Aspen explained that the decree “was not intended to prevent HUD from attempting to aid the development of housing in an area that might be well on its way to becoming an urban wasteland without such aid,” but rather “to prevent the dumping or clustering of assisted housing.” The district court also issued a waiver that would allow development even if the court of appeals found that the consent decree conflicted with the project. 548 F. Supp. 1284.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion issued on April 29, 1983, in which it found that the district court’s decision to issue a waiver was not clearly erroneous. Gautreaux v. Pierce, 707 F.2d 265.

A group of intervenors then asked for a system of resident placement in that same development designed to reach a racial balance, which the district court characterized as one of racial quotas. On March 14, 1984, the district court denied the motion both on the merits and because the intervenors lacked standing. 101 F.R.D. 704. The Seventh Circuit agreed that intervention was not proper on September 7, 1984. 743 F.2d 526.

On August 15, 1990, Judge Aspen also denied intervention to two community groups that sought to prevent the construction of subsidized housing in their neighborhoods for lack of standing and failure to show that the existing plaintiffs did not represent their interests. 132 F.R.D. 193.

The court then denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay rehabilitation of four high-rise public housing buildings so that the money could be spent on scattered developments instead. In an opinion issued on April 4, 1991, Judge Aspen explained that the plaintiffs had failed to show that rehabilitation work would prevent the scattered developments they sought to protect. 1991 WL 49568.

Shift to Rent Subsidies

By the late 1990s, subsidized housing was largely provided by Section 8 vouchers rather than new construction projects. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that the judgment order should be reformed to include Section 8 vouchers as well as new construction. The district court disagreed. Judge Aspen wrote that the judgment order was designed to remedy past discrimination in site selection for public housing, and that there was no evidence that past discrimination prevented Section 8 recipients from finding housing in majority-white neighborhoods. In addition, Judge Aspen terminated the 1981 consent decree because HUD had successfully placed 7,100 subsidized dwelling units in non-segregated areas. Finally, Judge Aspen declined the plaintiffs’ request to enforce a section of the consent decree that limited the proportion of Section 8 vouchers that could be applied in minority neighborhoods because it had been violated for years without complaint by the plaintiffs, who in any event did not want the vouchers to be cut off. 981 F. Supp. 1091 (1997). (The 1969 Judgment Order remained in place, however.)

The district also declined to consolidate a separate challenge to the Gautreaux parties’ decision to expand subsidized housing using Section 8 funds with this case. In a July 6, 2006 order, the court explained that the separate challenge was not closely related to Gautreaux because it focused on poor quality of subsidized housing and lack of resident input into development projects. Thomas v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 2006 WL 1886178.

Revitalization Programs

The parties’ next major dispute centered on the use of Home Ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) funds. The defendants believed that they could spend HOPE construction funds only in the most depressed areas. But the plaintiffs said that would violate the Judgment Order, which limited construction of subsidized housing in minority neighborhoods without corresponding construction in white neighborhoods. On February 23, 1998, Judge Aspen agreed with the plaintiffs because HOPE allowed funds to be spent on “off-site housing” and “scattered-site development.” 4 F. Supp. 2d 757. The defendants appealed, but the Seventh Circuit determined that the decision was not a final order and thus not appealable. 178 F.3d 951 (1999).

Actual construction of subsidized housing under HOPE was limited, however. For example, local opposition to redeveloping the Cabrini-Green area triggered another lawsuit. 1999 WL 1023916. And a citizens’ group unhappy with the plans to use HOPE money to revitalize the ALBA homes unsuccessfully moved to intervene in this case. 2004 WL 1427107.

Disputes also emerged about how to allocate space in newly revitalized subsidized housing. For example, the court directed that half of the new units in the North Kenwood-Oakland neighborhood be reserved for families earning from 0 to 50% of the area median income, and the other half reserved for families earning from 50% to 80% of the area median income. That caused a problem when too few individuals in the 50% to 80% range applied. A citizens’ group asked the court to allow lower-income families to move in, worried that the developer would bypass ordinary waitlists for public housing. The parties generally resisted, due in part to promises they had made that the development would be mixed-income. The district court generally left the original plan intact, but on July 14, 2005, it did allow the developer to solicit applications from families earning from 50% to 60% of the area median income regardless of whether they were on a Chicago Housing Authority waitlist already. The citizens’ group appealed, but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of standing on January 19, 2007. 475 F.3d 845.

The Cabrini-Green development continued to attract controversy. A group called the Local Advisory Council (“Council”) sued the Chicago Housing Authority to enforce this case’s consent decree. The Council objected to a provision in residents’ leases that provided for eviction upon conviction of a felony. The court agreed, finding that the leases’ language was unnecessarily broad and not justified under the Public Housing Act of 1937. Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chi. Hous. Auth., 2007 WL 294253.

The Council also objected to a 2011 CHA plan to revitalize rowhouses in the Cabrini-Green area but maintain only about one-third as public housing. It sued to force the CHA to keep all of the development as public housing. The CHA then moved to reassign the case to Judge Aspen and relate it to Gautreaux. It also moved to dismiss the case entirely.

On October 9, 2013, Judge Aspen granted the CHA’s motion to reassign the case. Judge Aspen found that the cases were related because they both involved how the Authority should develop Cabrini-Green properties. Since the Cabrini-Green litigation was relatively new, Judge Aspen also determined that efficiency concerns weighed in favor of reassignment. However, Judge Aspen denied the motion to dismiss while allowing the Authority to re-file it later. 2013 WL 5567771.

The parties worked to settle the Cabrini-Green litigation. They eventually reached an agreement that Judge Aspen approved on September 16, 2015. The settlement provided that the CHA would redevelop a collection of about 400 vacant units as 40% public housing and at least 15% affordable housing. The CHA also agreed to consult with the Council before redeveloping another collection of about 150 public housing units. And the CHA promised to provide 1800 subsidized units in the Near North Area, targeted for completion by the end of 2022. However, the CHA was allowed to develop the remainder of the site with only one-third public housing.

Settlement Modification

With the litigation now more than fifty years old, the parties began to work on a settlement to replace the 1969 Judgment Order and eventually bring the case to a close. They submitted a proposed Settlement Agreement to the court on January 16, 2019. The parties argued that the court should modify the Judgment Order because intentional discrimination had dissipated over time and all the parties were now working to desegregate Chicago’s housing.

The Settlement Agreement:

  • provided detailed development plans for specific housing complexes and initiatives to help residents escape housing segregation;
  • limited the CHA’s ability to develop new non-elderly public housing in areas where it would result in racial segregation;
  • provided early learning programs to CHA residents at no cost; and
  • required the CHA to meet quarterly with the plaintiff's class counsel for monitoring.
On January 23, 2019, Judge Aspen approved the Settlement Agreement, which was set to remain in effect until July 31, 2024, subject to extension if the CHA failed to meet its development goals.

Attorney’s Fees

Throughout the case, the plaintiffs have obtained multiple fee awards that total approximately $9 million. Many recent awards have been uncontested. But in the early 2000s, the CHA resisted paying fee awards because “its relationship with the plaintiffs [was] one of cooperation.” The Seventh Circuit, however, found that “a judicially sanctioned consent decree is a firm basis for a fee award,” especially due to the parties’ ongoing disputes about how best to implement the Judgement Order. 491 F.3d 649 (2007).

The case is ongoing as the 2019 settlement agreement remains in force.

Available Opinions

265 F. Supp. 582 (1967)

296 F. Supp. 907 (1969)

304 F. Supp. 736 (1969)

436 F.2d 306 (1970)

448 F.2d 731 (1971)

363 F. Supp. 690 (1973)

503 F.2d 930 (1974)

523 F. Supp. 665 (1981)

548 F. Supp. 1284 (1982)

Gautreaux v. Pierce, 707 F.2d 265 (1983)

101 F.R.D. 704 (1984)

743 F.2d 526 (1984)

132 F.R.D. 193 (1990)

1991 WL 49568

981 F. Supp. 1091 (1997)

4 F. Supp. 2d 757 (1998)

178 F.3d 951 (1999)

1999 WL 1023916

2004 WL 1427107

Thomas v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 2006 WL 1886178

475 F.3d 845 (2007)

491 F.3d 649 (2007)

Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chi. Hous. Auth., 2007 WL 294253

2013 WL 5567771

Summary Authors

Dan Osher (8/4/2013)

Lisa Koo (3/4/2019)

Richa Bijlani (11/7/2019)

Timothy Leake (2/6/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5388674/parties/gautreaux-v-chgo-housing-auth/


Judge(s)

Aspen, Marvin E. (Illinois)

Austin, Richard William (Illinois)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Coar, David H. (Illinois)

Crowley, John Powers (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Duffy, Francis Ryan (Illinois)

Kiley, Roger J. Jr. (Illinois)

Pell, Wilbur Frank Jr. (Indiana)

Posner, Richard A. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Aspen, Marvin E. (Illinois)

Austin, Richard William (Illinois)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Coar, David H. (Illinois)

Crowley, John Powers (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Duffy, Francis Ryan (Illinois)

Kiley, Roger J. Jr. (Illinois)

Pell, Wilbur Frank Jr. (Indiana)

Posner, Richard A. (District of Columbia)

Ripple, Kenneth Francis (Indiana)

Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)

Stewart, Potter (District of Columbia)

Wood, Diane Pamela (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anderson, Mary E. (Illinois)

Bourgeois, Yolande (Illinois)

Brown, Julie Elena (Illinois)

Butler, Jerome (Illinois)

Cassel, Douglas W (Illinois)

Fair, Timothy (Illinois)

Filpi, Robert (Illinois)

Freed, Merrill A (Illinois)

Gross, Adam Edward (Illinois)

Hendrickson, Cara (Illinois)

Learner, Howard A (Illinois)

Markels, Charles (Illinois)

Polikoff, Alexander L (Illinois)

Shadur, Milton Irving (Illinois)

Weisberg, Bernard (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ammarell, Scott William (Illinois)

Bebley, James Lavell (Illinois)

Berg, Harold T (Illinois)

Cazares, Jorge V. (Illinois)

Colston, Cheryl J. (Illinois)

Curry, Richard L (Illinois)

Eisenhauer, Nancy S. (Illinois)

Elson, Alex (Illinois)

Freeman, Lee A. Jr. (Illinois)

Frost, Wilson (Illinois)

Getzendanner, Susan Christine O'Meara (Illinois)

Gilbert, Jeffrey (Illinois)

Grossman, Robert (Illinois)

Heimsoth, Mark E (Illinois)

Hickey, Lawrence P (Illinois)

Holman, Claude W. B. (Illinois)

Holmes, Patricia Brown (Illinois)

Hunt, John W (Illinois)

Johnson, Thomas Edward (Illinois)

Keane, Thomas E (Illinois)

Krugly, Ruth E (Illinois)

Kula, Kathryn M (Illinois)

Lafontant, H Ernest (Illinois)

Mine, Andrew S. (Illinois)

Murphy, Clyde E. (Illinois)

Murray, James (Illinois)

Osran, Thomas Neil (Illinois)

Otis, James T (Illinois)

Quade, David R (Illinois)

Quinlan, William R. (Illinois)

Sadowski, Edmund H (Illinois)

Silas, Elizabeth Marie (Illinois)

Sullivan, Thomas P. (Illinois)

Theis, John Kenneth (Illinois)

Thompson, James B (Illinois)

Webb, Dan K. (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Burtschi, Kathleen E. (District of Columbia)

Carrol, Gwen (Illinois)

Caruso, F. Willis (Illinois)

Chapman, James (Illinois)

Conway, Timothy R (Illinois)

Davis, Allison S. (Illinois)

Dent, Thomas A (Illinois)

Diamond, Stephen B (Illinois)

Feldman, Edward W (Illinois)

Fiffer, Robert S. (Illinois)

Flando, Richard J. (Illinois)

Garber, Stanley J. (Illinois)

Goff, Phillip M (Illinois)

Gursahani, Veena K (Illinois)

Hall, Calvin H. (Illinois)

Hassan, Michael R. (Illinois)

Hedlund, Marylou (Illinois)

Heismoth, Mark E (Illinois)

Herman, Nancy (Illinois)

Hirshman, Harold C. (Illinois)

Hoellen, John J. (Illinois)

Horowitz, Steven J (Illinois)

Howell, Kenneth (Illinois)

Jacobs, Maurice (Illinois)

Jahns, Jeffrey (Illinois)

Jensen, John (Illinois)

Johns, Jeffrey Harold (Illinois)

Kinnally, Patrick M (Illinois)

Krone, Philip S (Illinois)

Lasky, Allan N. (Illinois)

Lesser, Frederic Bryan (Illinois)

Levin, Daniel C. (Pennsylvania)

Lucansky, Patrick Alex (Illinois)

Miller, Barry A (Illinois)

Mischner, Kenneth (Illinois)

Neal, Earl L (Illinois)

Nixon, Lewis M. (Illinois)

O'Brien, Patrick W. (Illinois)

O’Malley, Richard F Jr (Illinois)

Pascal, Roger (Illinois)

Rasher, Steven M (Illinois)

Ratner, Gershon M. (District of Columbia)

Riseborough, George (Illinois)

Rosella, Kristin Jean (Illinois)

Rosenthal, R. Elizabeth (Illinois)

Rosing, William G. (Illinois)

Ruddy, Clarence John Jr. (Illinois)

Shakman, Michael L. (Illinois)

Shorenstein, Ronnie (District of Columbia)

Simon, Seymour (Illinois)

Skoning, Gerald D (Illinois)

Tucker, Watson B. (Illinois)

Walz, Katherine Elizabeth (Illinois)

Warshaw, Roberta S (Illinois)

Weems, Lea (Illinois)

Weiner, Lawrence Jay (Illinois)

Welsh, Kelly Raymond (Illinois)

Wexler, Richard (Illinois)

Wheelock, Richard M. (Illinois)

Whitfield, Robert D. (Illinois)

Widman, Joel L. (Illinois)

Wilen, William Paul (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Gautreaux, et al v. Weaver

Aug. 18, 2005 Docket

Docket [Pre-PACER]

Gautreaux v. Romney

Jan. 9, 2006 Docket

Docket [pre-PACER]

March 6, 2014 Docket

Docket [PACER]

Gautreaux v. Chgo Housing Auth

Dec. 9, 2019 Docket

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

504 F.2d 930

Aug. 26, 1964 Order/Opinion

Opinion

265 F.Supp. 582

March 2, 1967 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

296 F.Supp. 907

Feb. 10, 1969 Order/Opinion

Judgment Order

304 F.Supp. 736

July 1, 1969 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

436 F.2d 306

Dec. 16, 1970 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Gautreaux v. Romney

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

448 F.2d 731

Sept. 10, 1971 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Gautreaux and Institutional Litigation

Alexander Polikoff

Jan. 1, 1988

Rewriting Beginnings: The Lessons of Gautreaux

Janet Koven Levit

Can happy endings resuscitate murky beginnings? When the Gautreaux litigation began in 1966, few believed that the courts could remedy the seemingly intractable racial discrimination plaguing Chicago… Oct. 1, 1994 https://repository.jmls.edu/lawreview/vol28/iss1/2/

Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto

Alexander Polikoff

On his thirty-ninth birthday in 1966, Alexander Polikoff, a volunteer ACLU attorney and partner in a Chicago law firm, met some friends to discuss a pro bono case. Over lunch, the four talked about t… May 11, 2007

The Gautreaux Lawsuit

BPI

BPI’s housing work began in 1970 when attorney Alexander Polikoff joined BPI and brought with him the Gautreaux litigation. Filed by Polikoff in 1966, against the background of Dr. Martin Luther King… July 31, 2024 https://www.bpichicago.org/programs/housing-community-development/public-housing/gautreaux-lawsuit/

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5388674/gautreaux-v-chgo-housing-auth/

Last updated May 13, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link

MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing held; continued to 06/18/93 at 1:30 p.m. Mailed notice (is)

May 14, 1993 PACER

text entry

May 14, 1993 PACER

MAY 14, 1993 REPORT by defendant Chicago Housing Authority development demonstration program; Notice of filing (is)

May 14, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

May 14, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 06/18/93 is stricken. Mailed notice (is)

June 21, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

June 21, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 7/21/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing set for 08/03/93 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (is)

July 21, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

July 21, 1993 PACER

NOTICE of filing by receivers Daniel E Levin and Habitat Co regarding quarterly report of the receiver 2nd quarter, 1993 (Attachments) (is)

Aug. 4, 1993 PACER

notice of filing

Aug. 4, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : In chambers conference held. No notice (is)

Aug. 5, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

Aug. 5, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 12/7/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Joint motion to approve site-specific waiver of consent decree locational restrictions granted. [0-1] Mailed notice (tlm)

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

motion for order

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

AGREED ORDER regarding motion to approve site-specific waiver of consent decree locational restrictions. [0-1] (tlm)

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

order

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

MOTION by Jimmie Jones, Robert M Fairfax, James Rodgers, Eva Rodgers, Doreatha R Crenchaw, Odell Jones, Dorothy Gautreaux, and Henry G. Cisneros fo the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to approve site-specific waiver of consent decree locationalrestrictions ; Notice of filing and certificate of service. (tlm)

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Enter Agreed Order. Mailed notice (tlm)

Dec. 10, 1993 PACER

order

Dec. 10, 1993 PACER

AGREED ORDER regarding scattered site specific waiver of consent decree locational restrictions. (tlm)

Dec. 10, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

Dec. 10, 1993 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 12/21/93 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for four homeless housing projects [0-1]. Enter agreed order. Mailed notice (fce)

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER

motion for order

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER

AGREED ORDER regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for four homeless housing projects [0-1] (fce)

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER

order

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER

MOTION by plaintiffs Dorothy Gautreaux and defendant Cisneros to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for four homeless housing projects ; Notice of filing; Notice of motion (fce)

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

Dec. 21, 1993 PACER
25

JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs' defendant CHA for order amending tenant assignment plan ; Notice (Temporarily unavailable for docketing). (cdh) Modified on 10/21/1994 (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Feb. 15, 1994 PACER
1

NOTICE OF FILING by Daniel E Levin & The Habitat Company (Attachments) (fce) (Entered: 03/01/1994)

Feb. 28, 1994 PACER
4

MOTION by plaintiffs' for leave to file appearances of additional counsel (Attachments); Notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/1994)

March 15, 1994 PACER
2

JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs', and defendant for order amending tenant assignment plan (Attachments); Notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/1994)

March 15, 1994 PACER
5

MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Withdrawing plaintiffs' motion for leave to file appearances of additional counsel [4-1] No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/1994)

March 18, 1994 PACER
3

MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Withdrawing plaintiffs' joint motion for order amending tenant assignment plan [2-1]. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/1994)

March 18, 1994 PACER
7

NOTICE of filing by defendant CHA regarding quarterly report: 1st quarter 1994 [6-1] (jmp) (Entered: 04/28/1994)

April 26, 1994 PACER
6

QUARTERLY REPORT: 1st Quarter 1994 by defendant CHA scattered site housing program (Attachment) (jmp) (Entered: 04/28/1994)

April 26, 1994 PACER
18

NOTICE of motion by plaintiff Dorothy Gautreaux, plaintiff Odell Jones, plaintiff Doreatha R Crenchaw, plaintiff Eva plaintiff James Rodgers, plaintiff Robert M Fairfax regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project [16-1] (jmp) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 1, 1994 PACER
17

NOTICE of filing and certificastse of service by plaintiff Dorothy Gautreaux, plaintiff Odell Jones, plaintiff Doreatha R Crenchaw, plaintiff Eva plaintiff James Rodgers, plaintiff Robert M Fairfax regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project [16-1] (jmp) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 1, 1994 PACER
16

MOTION by plaintiff Dorothy Gautreaux, plaintiff Odell Jones, plaintiff Doreatha R Crenchaw, plaintiff Eva Rodgers, plaintiff James Rodgers, plaintiff Robert M Fairfax to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project (jmp) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 1, 1994 PACER
9

NOTICE of motion by plaintiff Dorothy Gautreaux regarding motion for leave to establish joinder of claims [8-1] (jmp) (Entered: 06/15/1994)

June 14, 1994 PACER
8

MOTION by plaintiff Dorothy Gautreaux for leave to establish joinder of claims (jmp) (Entered: 06/15/1994)

June 14, 1994 PACER
13

MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Denying motion for leave to establish joinder of claims [11-1]. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 17, 1994 PACER
12

NOTICE of filing; Notice of motion by Constance Haliburton regarding motion for leave to establish joinder of claims [11-1] (jmp) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 17, 1994 PACER
11

MOTION by Constance Haliburton for leave to establish joinder of claims (jmp) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 17, 1994 PACER
10

MINUTE ORDER of 6/17/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Denying motion for leave to establish joinder of claims [8-1]. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 17, 1994 PACER
14

MINUTE ORDER of 6/21/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing reset for 06/29/94 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/24/1994)

June 21, 1994 PACER
20

MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project [16-1]. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 29, 1994 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

June 29, 1994 PACER
19

AGREED ORDER regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project [16-1] (jmp) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 29, 1994 PACER

MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for East Garfield Park Homeless Housing Project [16-1]. Mailed notice (jmp)

June 29, 1994 PACER
15

MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing held. No notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/30/1994)

June 29, 1994 PACER
21

LETTER from plaintiffs' Dorothy Gautreaux, plaintiff Odell Jones, plaintiff Doreatha R Crenchaw, plaintiff Eva Rodgers, plaintiff James Rodgers, plaintiff Robert M Fairfax, plaintiff Jimmie Jones to Judge Aspen dated 06/30/94. (Temporarily unavailable for docketing) (jmp) (Entered: 07/19/1994)

June 30, 1994 PACER
24

QUARATERLY REPORT: 2nd quarter 1994 on scattered site housing program by defendant CHA; Notice of filing (jmp) (Entered: 07/28/1994)

July 26, 1994 PACER
23

MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Enter agreed order extending the period of time for development of the Demonstration Program Units by the Joint Venture until such time as the 350 units are complete and ready for occupancy, provided that any party may at any time request that the court set a date for the termination of the Demonstration Program if such completion does not occcur within a reasonable time. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 07/28/1994)

July 26, 1994 PACER
22

AGREED ORDER (jmp) (Entered: 07/28/1994)

July 26, 1994 PACER
27

MINUTE ORDER of 10/6/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting joint motion of plaintiffs' and the CHA for order amending tenant assignment plan [25-1]. Enter order. No notice (cdh) (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994 PACER
26

ORDER regarding motion for order amending tenant assignment plan [25-1] (cdh) (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994 PACER
29

NOTICE of filing by defendant CHA regarding Scattered Site Housing Program quarterly report: 3rd quarter 1994 [28-1] (jmp) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

Oct. 27, 1994 PACER
28

SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROGRAM quarterly report: 3rd quarter 1994 by defendant CHA (jmp) (Entered: 10/28/1994)

Oct. 27, 1994 PACER
34

MINUTE ORDER of 10/28/94 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for Rogers Park scattered site units [30-1]. Enter agreed order. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994 PACER
33

AGREED ORDER regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for Rogers Park scattered site units [30-1] (jmp) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994 PACER
32

NOTICE of filing and certificate of service by plaintiffs' Dorothy Gautreaux, Odell Jones, Doreatha R Crenchaw, Eva Rodgers, James Rodgers, Robert M Fairfax, Jimmie Jones, defendant HUD regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for Rogers Park scattered site units [30-1] (jmp) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994 PACER
31

NOTICE of motion by plaintiffs' Dorothy Gautreaux, Odell Jones, Doreatha R Crenchaw, Eva Rodgers, James Rodgers, Robert M Fairfax, Jimmie Jones, defendant HUD regarding motion to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for Rogers Park scattered site units [30-1] (jmp) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994 PACER
30

MOTION by plaintiffs' Dorothy Gautreaux, Odell Jones, Doreatha R Crenchaw, Eva Rodgers, James Rodgers, Robert M Fairfax, Jimmie Jones, defendant HUD to enter agreed order waiving consent decree locational restrictions for Rogers Park scattered site units (jmp) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Oct. 28, 1994 PACER
35

SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROGRAM - 1,608 UNITS Quarterly Report: 4th Quarter 1994 by defendant CHA; Notice of filing (jmp) (Entered: 02/02/1995)

Feb. 1, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 3/8/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing held. No notice (gl)

March 8, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 3/8/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing set for 08 Mar.95 at 3:00 p.m. Telephoned notice (gl)

March 8, 1995 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

March 8, 1995 PACER
37

NOTICE of filing by defendant CHA Scattered Site Housing Program regarding quarterly report: 1st quarter 1995 [36-1] (jmp) (Entered: 05/01/1995)

April 28, 1995 PACER
36

QUARTERLY REPORT, 1st quarter 1995 by defendant CHA Scattered Site Housing Program (jmp) (Entered: 05/01/1995)

April 28, 1995 PACER
38

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/8/95. Before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen (jmp) (Entered: 05/04/1995)

May 3, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 6/2/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing set to 2:00 6/6/95 . Telephoned notice (gl)

June 2, 1995 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

June 2, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 6/6/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing held. No notice (gl)

June 6, 1995 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

June 6, 1995 PACER
39

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 03/08/95. Before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen. (jmp) (Entered: 07/11/1995)

July 11, 1995 PACER
40

SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROGRAM quarterly report: 2nd quarter 1995 by defendant CHA ; Notice of filing (jmp) (Entered: 07/26/1995)

July 24, 1995 PACER
42

MINUTE ORDER of 8/1/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Plaintiffs' motion for entry of further order, as contemplated by this court's order of 08/09/95 [41-1] will be heard on 08/14/95 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/03/1995)

Aug. 1, 1995 PACER
41

MOTION by plaintiffs' Dorothy Gautreaux, Odell Jones, Doreatha R Crenchaw, Eva Rodgers, James Rodgers, Robert M Fairfax, Jimmie Jones for entry of further order, as contemplated by this court's order of 08/09/95 ; Notice of motion (jmp) (Entered: 08/03/1995)

Aug. 1, 1995 PACER
46

MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting plaintiffs' motion for entry of further order, as contemplated by this court's order of 08/09/95 [41-1] Enter order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER
45

ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER
44

MINUTE ORDER of 8/14/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Joint motion of plaintiffs and the CHA for order amending tenant assignment plan is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER
43

ORDER (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 8/14/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing held. No notice (gl)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 8/14/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing set to 2:00 8/14/95 . Telephoned notice (gl)

Aug. 14, 1995 PACER
49

MINUTE ORDER of 8/23/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Granting joint motion of plaintiffs and the CHA for order amending tenant assignment plan [47-1] Enter Order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995 PACER
48

ORDER regarding motion for order amending tenant assignment plan [47-1] (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995 PACER
47

JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and the CHA for order amending tenant assignment plan (fce) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995 PACER
51

RULE 39 Affidavit of Benjamin Earl Starks (yap) (Entered: 11/16/1995)

Nov. 15, 1995 PACER
50

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Residents for N Ken by Benjamin Earl Starks (yap) (Entered: 11/16/1995)

Nov. 15, 1995 PACER
54

MINUTE ORDER of 11/21/95 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Residents for the Responsible Redevelopment of North Kenwood Oakland Community's motion to join as a party plaintiff is [52-1] denied. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

Nov. 21, 1995 PACER
53

MEMORANDUM by unknown Residents for N Ken in support of motion to join as a party plaintiff [52-1] (yap) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

Nov. 21, 1995 PACER
52

MOTION by unknown Residents for N Ken to join as a party plaintiff (Exhibits); Notice of motion (yap) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

Nov. 21, 1995 PACER
58

MINUTE ORDER of 4/15/96 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen: Hearing held. Joint motion of plaintiffs and defendant Chicago Housing Authority for an order relating to Horner revitalizing area [55-1] is granted. Enter order. No notice (yap) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996 PACER
57

ORDER regarding motion for further order relating to Horner revitalizing area [55-1] (yap) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996 PACER
56

AFFIDAVIT of Daniel E. Levin. (yap) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996 PACER
55

JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant Chicago Housing Authority for further order relating to Horner revitalizing area ; Notice of motion. (yap) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996 PACER

SCHEDULE set on 5/6/96 by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen : Status hearing reset to 9:30 5/22/96. Mailed notice (gl)

May 6, 1996 PACER

minutes - miscellaneous

May 6, 1996 PACER

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Public Housing

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 1, 1975

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

African Americans in Chicago who are in or have applied to Chicago public housing.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Chicago Housing Authority (Chicago), State

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Housing Authority

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 9,000,000

Order Duration: 1969 - 2024

Content of Injunction:

Receivership

Discrimination Prohibition

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Housing

Housing assistance

Public assistance grants

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Racial segregation

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black