Gautreaux v. Romney, 66 C 1459

• Decision Date: 11 September 1973
• Docket Number: 66 C 1460.,No. 66 C 1459,66 C 1459
• Citation: 363 F. Supp. 690
• Parties: Dorothy GAUTREAUX et al., Plaintiffs, v. George W. ROMNEY, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

363 F. Supp. 690

Dorothy GAUTREAUX et al., Plaintiffs, v. George W. ROMNEY, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 66 C 1459, 66 C 1460.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

September 11, 1973.

Alexander Polikoff, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Patrick W. O'Brien, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Chicago Housing Authority.

James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., James C. Murray, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendant Romney.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER

AUSTIN, District Judge.

The facts of these cases have often been recited and need no repetition here.^* This matter comes before me today on plaintiffs' motion (1) to defer my ruling on the proposed final judgment orders submitted by HUD and plaintiffs; (2) to determine that it is necessary to consider a metropolitan plan for relief; and (3) to provide for the preparation of such plans by HUD and CHA. For the reasons stated below, that motion is denied.

Stated simply, this lawsuit attacks racial discrimination in public housing within the City of Chicago. Both defendants have previously been found liable to plaintiffs because they either fostered or tolerated the unconstitutional implementation of federal housing statutes. And, having already entered an appropriate judgment against CHA, what remains before me is the relief to be obtained from HUD.

Plaintiffs' motion asks me to consider the propriety of metropolitan area relief similar to that granted in Bradley v. Milliken, 484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973), which was a case dealing with racial segregation in the Detroit public school system. But, although such relief may have been justified in Bradley, it is simply unwarranted here because it goes far beyond the issues of this case. Unlike education, the right to adequate housing is not constitutionally guaranteed and is a matter for the legislature. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74, 92 S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972). Of course, once such legislation is enacted into law, it is constitutionally impermissible to administer it in a racially discriminatory manner. Here, for example, the evils of racial discrimination in public housing were fostered by decisions of the housing authority of the City of Chicago and tolerated by the federal agency which financed such projects.

However, the wrongs were committed within the limits of Chicago and solely against residents of the City. It has never been alleged that CHA and HUD discriminated or fostered racial discrimination in the suburbs and, given the limits of CHA's jurisdiction, such claims could never be proved against the principal offender herein. After years of seemingly interminable litigation, plaintiffs now suggest that I consider a metropolitan plan for relief against political entities which have previously had nothing to do with this lawsuit. The factual basis for their request is an opinion of an urbanologist that by the year 2000 the entire geographic area of the City of Chicago will be within the limited public housing area as defined by the judgment order entered on July 1, 1969. This is simply inadequate to support a request to consider imposing obligations upon those who were and are incapable of discriminatory site selection within the City of Chicago.

Furthermore, plaintiffs should not have to be reminded that no public housing has been built in this City since my order of July 1, 1969 because the municipal...