Fair Housing: The Young Case (continued)
The March 3, 1988 Interim Injunction prohibited HUD from subjecting class members to segregation on the basis of race by detailing the procedures for tenant selection, requiring HUD to create alternative desegregated housing opportunities for class members, provide notice to class members of housing projects and programs in relevant areas, direct programs in non-racially impacted areas in the affected counties to amend their housing plans for referrals to and from HUD. HUD was also required to designate employees to respond to requests and complaints from class members seeking housing in non-racially impacted areas as well as to keep a written record of these requests and complaints and the action taken by HUD, to conduct investigations into causes of racial disparity, and to file quarterly status reports with the court along other requirements. The quarterly status reports included HUD’s compliance with each provision of the injunction as well as the results of compliance. These reports were filed through 2001.
In March 1990, the plaintiffs moved to join the City of Paris, Texas and the Paris Housing Authority as defendants in the case. Judge Justice granted the motion.
- Plaintiffs’ Motion to add the City of Paris and the Paris Housing Authority as Defendants, March 5, 1990.
- Order Granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add the City of Paris and Paris Housing Authority as Defendants, April 4, 1990.
In September 1990, Judge Justice granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction to require action by HUD to remove vestiges of discrimination, effective monitoring and reporting, and action to prevent future violations.
- Order for Further Relief, September 10, 1990.
- Plaintiffs’ Proposed Reporting Format, October 10, 1990.
- Federal Defendants’ Proposed Reporting Format, October 1990.
By June 1991, HUD had filed and begun to implement 58 individual desegregation plans with the Court. Following the 1992 presidential election, a new administration was appointed for HUD. The previous plans were withdrawn with the Court’s permission for a four-month review. In February 1994, these plans were resubmitted with an amendment to each plan.
While HUD reviewed the previous plans, plaintiffs filed a motion for a final remedy order, prepared in the event that that HUD’s plan were insubstantial for achieving desegregation of East Texas public housing.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted on the adequacy of HUD’s amended desegregation plans on April 18, 19, and May 12, 1994.
- Federal Defendants’ Proposed Final Remedy Order, October 31, 1994.
- Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order for Final Relief, November 18, 1994.
- Federal Defendants’ Proposed Revised Final Remedy Order, December 12, 1994.
A September 30, 1994 order required HUD to submit reports on the progress of initial rentals for new low-rent public housing in Paris and Nacogdoches, Texas. These reports continued through 1995.
- Agreed Order for Paris and Nachodoches Units, September 30, 1994.
- HUD’s First Mobility Counseling Report, November 1, 1994.
In March 1995, a final judgment was entered in the case. Under the Final Judgment and Decree, HUD was required to file a “fully integrated” desegregation plan for each of the public housing authorities. Also required were “Memoranda of Understanding” for each municipality and public housing authority where neighborhood improvements need to be made. These indicate that the municipality agreed to effect any improvements.