1. Public Interest Law & Policy Class 5 Ronald W. Staudt September 11, 2007

2. Public Interest Law & Policy Waiting for Gautreaux, pages 79 – 124

3. Things to note Anniversaries No class Thursday- also check October changes September 17- Public Interest Luncheon Certificate students, A2J Student Editorial Board, this class LAFMC supervising attorneys and computer committee; LSC HotDocs lawyer trainees Case Study Plans due today Context for Alexander Polikoff’s presentation

4. Waiting for Gautreaux Cross SJ motions Humphrey affidavit, white sites approved, city council eliminated them Cost and slum clearance v. no intent Kerner Commission, King assassination, Fair Housing Act of 1968, new HUD Act, Kaiser report and Douglas Commission Chicago Convention, Nixon nomination, Gautreaux death.

5. Austin’s decision on the SJ motionsAustin’s decision on the SJ motions 296 F. Supp. 907 (2/10/1969) Quotas at white projects Threats of violence. No excuse—Cooper Site selection Statutory directive, Council approval, pre-clearance Statistics– table of data– no white sites compare elderly housing Depositions-- Moore affid - cheaper white sites blocked by City Council No issue of fact re preclearance & racial veto Unrefuted stats & admissions Defense: no racial animus! CHA submitted white sites, wanted urban renewal. “Even if CHA had not participated in the elimination of white sites its officials were bound by the Constitution not to exercise CHA’s discretion to decide to build upon sites which were chosen by some other agency on the basis of race!”

6. Waiting for Gautreaux July 1, 1969- city remedy for a metropolitan disease? General or specific? 4-1, 3-1, etc. Definition of neighborhoods constituted an invitation to block busting Judicial review Metropolitan remedy and local consent 12 ghetto projects grandfathered First 700 units white with 50% for locals 1/3 in Cook County, but how?

7. Waiting for Gautreaux No CHA appeal but the wait begins No net for BPI act- a new start- April 1970 HUD, Romney and Nixon HUD case dismissed in Sept 1970

8. Waiting for Gautreaux CHA dances in conferences then appeal timetable to Supreme Ct. Election and metropolitan sites Daley: “These units should not be built.” Sites submitted to City Council Model Cities and housing deficit Deadlines set HUD loses appeal Model Cities dilemma- housing v. breakfasts and jobs- 101 Austin’s “hot” order—wattles and all Reversed on appeal

9. Waiting for Gautreaux Supplemental Complaint against Daley and the City Council Detailed relief granted Appeal won in split decision Majority/minority views Supreme Court declines in 1974- 5 years

10. Waiting for Gautreaux Metropolitan relief & HUD HUD ruling in 7 th Cir- Austin orders plan Experts Rabinowitz and Hauser Hearing – Austin strikes evidence about FHA and suburban segregation Milliken DC and C of A approach rejected Motion for metropolitan relief denied as letting Chicago off the hook…. “moments of greatest disappointment..”

11. Waiting for Gautreaux “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 authorities refused to approve sufficient sites for such housing and recently because of a lack of funds. But, now that one of those obstacles has been eliminated by the Seventh Circuit's recent affirmance of my order to build housing in Chicago without City Council approval, plaintiffs have curiously raised an issue that would let the principal offender, CHA, avoid the politically distasteful task before it by passing off its problems onto the suburbs.” Judge Richard Austin, Gautreaux v. Romney, 363 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ill. September 11, 1973).

12. Milliken v. Bradley Connection of Detroit school case to Gautreaux Timing issues Multi-district relief not appropriate Judge will become a de facto legislative authority and then a school superintendant Unless discrimination by one district causes segregation in other districts or district lines drawn on basis of race or white students in Detroit were sent to the suburbs, there is no constitutional duty to send black students to the suburbs. Stewart: …the Court does not deal with questions of substantive constitutional law. The basic issue now before the Court concerns, rather, the appropriate exercise of federal equity jurisdiction.” Impact?