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.     

Intergenerational Continuity of Risky Parenting: A Person-Oriented Approach to Assessing Parenting Behaviors

Limited research has investigated the long-term effects of childhood emotional abuse on later forms of parenting. This study utilized a person-centered approach to explore the relation between retrospectively-reported maternal childhood emotional abuse and observed parenting behaviors during a conflict discussion. Data were collected from 53 caregiver-child dyads with children ages 8–11. Results of a model-based clustering procedure (Mclust; Fraley and Raftery 2006) identified three parenting styles (negative, at-risk, positive) that were based on five observed parenting behaviors (emotion regulation, anger, hostility, psychological control, and psychological unavailability). Results indicated that higher levels of childhood emotional abuse were reported by women in the at-risk and negative parenting subgroups. Mothers in the negative parenting and at-risk parenting clusters exhibited greater levels of emotional abuse when compared to the positive parenting cluster. Possible implications are discussed, and results underscore the importance of emotionally abusive developmental experiences in the understanding of risk for maladaptive parenting behaviors.