The Lawyer as Abolitionist: Ending Homelessness and Poverty in Our Time

Homelessness and poverty are daunting institutions that appear to be insurmountable. However, I nonetheless urge that lawyers focus on abolishing homelessness and the cause of homelessness: poverty. I use the word “abolition” deliberately, to make the connection to the battles against slavery in the nineteenth century and for civil rights in the twentieth century. As “impregnable,” ineradicable, and intractable as homelessness and poverty seem today, so impregnable, ineradicable, and intractable did slavery and segregation appear in the past. I respect and honor any action taken by anyone to alleviate the suffering of the homeless or those living in poverty. Energy is devoted to feed, shelter, and clothe poor people, to provide health care and other essential services, to protect them from the ravages of the criminal “justice” system, and otherwise to succor them in various ways. While admirable, this is not enough. Time and energy must also be dedicated to reforming the economic, social, political, and cultural structures that allow homelessness and poverty to exist. Importantly, as lawyers we have skills that are especially useful for this work. What must be done to end homelessness and poverty is not more dramatic or radical than what was required to end slavery and de jure segregation. This Article presents some thoughts about that effort. For example, some solutions include changing laws and social policies and reinterpreting the Constitution. I urge that antihomelessness advocates keep their eyes on the prize. To produce major social change requires that individuals strive with determination to achieve their goal. In order to reach our goal, we must have a similar commitment as those who fought against slavery and segregation before us

Living Together: Ending Racial Discrimination and Segregation in Housing

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of three major events with respect to residential racial discrimination and segregation in the United States: the enactment of the “comprehensive” Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Supreme Court’s holding that the 1866 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property even where there is no state action, and the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite the 1968 Fair Housing Act and 1866 Civil Rights Act prohibiting residential racial discrimination and segregation, the United States is still characterized by substantial racial discrimination with respect to the sale, rental, and occupancy of housing and by pervasive racial residential segregation. Recognizing this, the Indiana Law Review devoted its 2008 Symposium Issue to this matter. Leading scholars and practitioners in the field contributed papers and participated in a live discussion on April 3-4, 2008. The participants in this Symposium all agree that the Fair Housing Act has not been fully successful in ending both discrimination and segregation. This raises questions about why the goals of the statute have not been achieved. Our contributors provide a basis for answering these questions, considering the creation of the Fair Housing Act, the inevitable political compromises that marked its enactment, and the consequences of those agreements. From their studies, our participants offer a wide range of suggested improvements in the fight for truly fair and open housing and access to opportunities. These suggestions will not be met without resistance, but each of us must persevere and work diligently to devise new and more effective ways to achieve the goal of truly open and integrated communities

Teaching About Inequality, Race, and Property

This Article surveys the extent and causes of racial inequality with respect to control over property, specifically the particularly striking aspect of the inequality: that it “is clearly color-coded.” While this “color-coding” exists internationally as well as domestically, the focus of this Article is on the United States where minorities, and in particular African-Americans control substantially less property than whites. Critically, the federal government has played an important role in creating, sponsoring, and perpetuating this inequality through deliberate policies and programs. As a result, minorities are disadvantaged and do not enjoy many of the same benefits of home ownership as whites. Importantly, these issues of discrimination can be raised in a property course. For example, many cases in the property curriculum illuminate ways in which white supremacist ideology and action have been a substantial cause of racial disparities in control of property. Further, additional legal courses may explore the forces behind the unequal distribution of advantage and foundations of inequality. My goal in teaching this material is to allow students to trace today’s racial disparities in wealth and endowments to government action. By studying the underpinnings of racial inequality in control over property, more students might move the federal government to acknowledge its role in racial inequality and right the wrong

Lessons for Advocacy from the Life and Legacy of the Reverend Doctor Pauli Murray

Many lessons may be drawn from the life and work of Anna Pauline Murray, who was known to the world as Pauli Murray

Securing Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act of Denials of Modifications of Mortgages Held by Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac

In 2009, the Obama Administration created a program intended to prevent home mortgage foreclosures by allowing modifications of the mortgages. The program was HAMP – Home Affordable Modification Program. HAMP has been a notorious failure, with a July 2015 report stating that only 30% of homeowners who applied for modifications were successful. Although servicer misconduct in administration of HAMP has been rampant, courts generally have not allowed homeowners to secure judicial review of denials of mortgage modifications. This article advances an argument that has not been made in litigation or commentary: that at least for mortgages held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (which comprise more than half the mortgages in the U.S.), judicial review of modification denials is available under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This is the case because before HAMP was created, Fannie and Freddie had been put into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which unquestionably is subject to the APA and is in total control of every aspect of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. Thus, the denials are final agency action subject to judicial review