Fighting Housing Discrimination in Europe

ABSTRACT

There is no exact European equivalent to the U.S. Fair Housing Act. The member states of the European Union (EU) have transposed into law the EU Racial Equality Directive of 2000 that prohibits discrimination in, among other things, access to the supply of goods and services, including housing, on the basis of race. Most housing discrimination case law so far comes from nonbinding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and European Committee of Social Rights under the revised European Social Charter of the Council of Europe. This article explains how the European context of discrimination and segregation differs from the American, reviews the major legal conventions establishing equal rights in housing, protected classes, and key precedents. It discusses how mixing policies in social housing are the primary mechanism to reduce residential segregation in Europe. The special case of extreme discrimination against the Roma is presented, before concluding with some comparative observations.     

Preserving the Law’s Coherence: Citizens United v. FEC and Stare Decisis

In addition to striking down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on independent expenditures, Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, an action that stands in contrast to the principle of stare decisis. This article analyzes the discussions of stare decisis in the various Citizens United opinions and compares these discussions to existing scholarly debate on the proper role of stare decisis in constitutional law. It also examines citations and discussions of Citizens United in state supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals cases to analyze how the justices’ discussions of stare decisis in Citizens United have influenced lower courts. The article concludes that the Citizens United opinions that discussed stare decisis — particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence — are highly problematic for a number of reasons. The applications of stare decisis in the opinions were also flawed. Citizens United has thus made it even easier for lower courts to abandon stare decisis and overturn precedent.