:dwfk ,qf - judicial watch … · :dwfk ,qf the . city of st. paul, mn, has given up in the magner...

-------

-----

Attorney-Client: ______ _

______ _

-----


___ _

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.

Document Number of

Releasable in Full:

Privileges:

Deliberative Process:

Attorney Work Product·

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:


Attorney Work Product:.

Common Interest in

ca Q fore ism1ssecf

[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

to

www.ncfc.oni


Worden, Jeanine M

From: Garcia, Michelle T Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 54 PM To: Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S;

Valles, Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Cc: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Magner (disparate Impact !hasuPf'�courttwilll5ea - -------- - - - - --- - - - --

---Original Message-

From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjll; Pennington, Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Yippee!!!

----Original Message--From: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

In case you hadn't heard.

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!

National Consumer Law Center(r) Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510

Washin 36

Sen: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM Advocates _PLUS

Subject: Unbelievable (Good) News

1

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up In the Magner case pending In the United StatesSupreme Court and fs withdrawing its petition (whew).Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another day!

National Consumer Law Center

7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fr.Boston, MA 02110

--------

______ _

-----

-------

___ _

----

Exemptions: _______ _

-----


___ _


Document

Releasable in Full:

Withhold Entirely:

Number of

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:

Attorney Work Product:

Common Interest in Lit:

Privileges:



Common Interest in

Joseph

[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Pelletier, A

From: Sent: To:

Cc: Subject:

Garcia, Michelle T Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :54 PM Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S; Valles, Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Worden, Jeanine M FW: Magner being dismissed!

-----Original Message----

From: Pennington, Kathleen M

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:11 PM

To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington,

Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa

Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Yippee Ill


From:


To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle

Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed I


----- Original Message ----


To: Ladd, Christine (Cf PB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB)

Subject: Magner being dismissed I

www.nclc.org

�Jibject

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Washington, DC 20036

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM

To:Advocates_PLUS

__ _ Unbe!Jeva {Good) N - - - -- - -

The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up in the Magner case pending in the United States

Supreme Court and is withdrawing its petition (whew).

Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another dayl


7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fl.

Boston, MA 02110

---------,.----

--------

-----


___ _


-----

-------

----


Document

Releasable in Full:

Number of

Withhold Entirely:


Common Interest in

Privileges:


Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Timothy. lambert(IOcfpb. gov [mail Timothy. [email protected]]

Messa •& ............ , ......

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Posner, Michael B

From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington,

Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Yippee! 11

From: to: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!


----- Original

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB)j Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!

National Consumer Law Center(r) 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:28 AM To: Advocates PLUS

t: Unbelievable News

the ited tates

- J National Consumer Law Center

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fl.

Boston, MA 02110

-

-------

______ _

-----

Attorney-Client: _ _ _ __ _ _

----

Exemptions: ____ _ _ _ _

-----


___ _


Document

Releasable in Full:

Number of

Privileges:

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:




Common Interest in


Common Interest in

Ray,

Timothy.Lambert@cfpb. gov [mailto:Timothy. Lambert@cfpb. gov]

-- --Sent:


Eileen F

From: Garcia, Michelle T Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1 :54 PM To: Pelletier, Joseph A; Ray, Eileen F; Wylie, James W; Jones, Erica M; Wills, Charlene S; Valles,

Jeanine M; Chang, Jason C; Scruggs, David R; Ratterman, Colin J Cc: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Magner ( will be dismissed.


From: Pennington, Kathleen M Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:11 PM To: Branch, Chandra; Garcia, Michelle T; Lippincott, Alexandria; McEachin, Onjil; Pennington, Kathleen M; Posner, Michael B; Stegman, Melissa Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!

Yippee! I I

-----Original Message----From: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:10 PM To: Pennington, Kathleen M; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Magner being dismissed!


Original Message

Friday, February 10, 2012 01:04 PM To: Ladd, Christine (CFPB); Ficklin, Patrice (CFPB) Subject: Magner being dismissed!

........ National Consumer Law

1001 te 510

Washington, DC 20036

2012 11:

) News

z

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.The City of St. Paul, MN, has given up in the Magner case pending in the United StatesSupreme Court and is withdrawing its petition (whew).Disparate impact litigation under the FHA lives another dayl

--


7 Winthrop Square, 4th Fl.

Boston, MA 02110

t

hh

-------

,_,,.,.,,,.."'c•o• ·-----


___ _

Other: ·----------


___ _

Deliberative


Common Interest in Lit: ----


Document

Releasable in Full:

Number of

Privileges:

Wit old

Privileges:

Deliberative


Common Interest in

Tuesday,

_____ . ---Orlginat-Massar·�-

you telephone-or

Worden, Jeanine M


L

From: Worden, Jeanine M Sent: January 31, 2012 9:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

Thanks - that's quite a list of amici!

· From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michell e; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amlcus Brief is attached - Magner v. Galfagher

Emery Cell i Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefell er Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NV 10019

www.ecbalaw.com

This electronic message transmission contains information from the I aw firm of Emery Cell i Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this Information is prohibited. If have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by by electronic mail

mediately.

-------

Attorney-Client: _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___ _



___ _

Privileges:

Deliberative Process: -----

Deliberative Process: -----


Document Number:------- Number of l Releasable in Full:

Attorney Work Product:.

Common Interest in

Withhold

Privileges:


Common Interest in

Other:-----��-�

t.p_!su:�r@dEL_ examEJesJ!:tat wouldJa1Lwit�.Aef.4eftt::tl"e7-tlm:fitfT1trachman delightful

- --··k·now.

[mailto:[email protected]]

www.ei:;:balaw.com

prohiblte eceived telephone-or


Worden, Jeanine M

From: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:53 AM To: Worden, Jeanine M Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

Very cool group of people to work with - Kim Kendrick really stepped ..... ··· ·-· was to get to

1 .. And it was a pleasure to brief Cisneros and discuss policy implications. All around great experienced - compressed into 3 short weeks (will tell you that story later).

---Original Message--From: Worden, Jeanine M Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:26 AM To: Subject: RE: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

Thanks -- that's quite a list of amici!

---Original Messa e----From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019

fax: 212. 763.5001

This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information Is this electronic transmission

error, please notify us by by electronic mail Immediately.

------- __ ___ _

------J�--

-----

-------

___ _

______ _ --------

-----

-------

----


Document Number: Number of Pages: } Releasable in Full:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Withhold Entirely: Exemptions:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

l I a


Worden, Jeanine M

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Monday, January 30, 2012 5:25 P Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Former HUD Officals Arnicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher Arnicus Brief (00102562).PDF

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019

fax: 212. 763.5001

www.ecbalaw.com

This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephon- or by electronic mail

'mmediately.

_____ _,,___

______ _

-----

-------

___ _


-----

-------

___ _


Document

Releasable in Full:

Number of

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Tanyna

nm'1"'0'"

rar•ff'\!1i'inf Ul;:\l,,IU;:\U!

"'"""'","'"' ints:>nrls:;tt If you are not the


Domino, L

From: Sent: on ay, April 18, 2011 3:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R Cc: Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Disparate impact: HUD regulation and Supreme Court cert petition Attachments: Magner.pdf

Importance: High

Helen:

Before you and [tum our attention to Passover (l have two flourless chocolate rolls and eggplant parmagiana still to make), I wanted to express my interest in HUD's ongoing consideration of a Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule. Many of us in the civil rights community have long thought that such a rule would provide some protection from a Supreme Court that may be poised to do away with disparate impact analysis altogether.

Now that the Supreme Court has called for a response to the cert petition in Magner v. Gallagher (see attached), many of us are quite nervous about the prospects. My firm is meeting internally tomoITow morning, and I know

.we will be discussing the importance of the HUD rule. Not just any rule, but one that appropriately reflects the very high public defendant's burden in such a case, and one that does not overly burden a plaintiff in a case involving a private defendant.

Can we visit about this when the holiday is over?

Reiman, Dane & Colfax, P LLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 .c. 20036-2456

FAX: 2021728-0848 E-mail: Website: www.relmanlaw.com Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia

NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments lo it contain confidential or information from the law firm of Dane & Colfax PLLC, This information is for the use of the intended If you are not the intended

that any or the of any action reliance on the and that the documents should be returned to this firm

email

information from the law firm This for the use of the intended

YOU are notified that any or the of any action in reliance on the contained is and that the documents should be returned to this firm If you have received this email in error, notify us email

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------

-------

-----


----

_ _____ _ Exemptions: _______ _

-----

-------

___ _


Document Number: Number of 1 Releasable in Full:

Privileges:



Common Interest in

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Tanyna

Best,•••

a 2 SI

www.naacpldf.org


Domino, L

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Magner v. Gallagher - LOF amicus brief USSC 10-1032 bsac NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, lnc .. pdf

Helen and Michelle,

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1444 I Street NW, 10th floor Washington, DC 20005

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

-------

-------

-----


___ _

----

______ _ Exemptions: _______ _

-----


----


Document Number: Number of

Releasable in Full:

Privileges:

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:






Common Interest in

Tanyna

distribution! a I If


Domino, L

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Aronowitz, Michelle Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:36 PM Lester, Elton J FW: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

You'll recognize the case of characters.

From: Sent: Mon ay, January 30, 2012 5:25 PM To: Aronowitz, Michelle; Worden, Jeanine M Subject: Former HUD Officals Amicus Brief Is attached - Magner v. Gallagher

Amicus Brief )0102562).PO

Emery Celll Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza; 20th Floor New York, NY 10019

fax: 212.763.5001

www.ecbalaw.com

This electronic message transmission contains Information from the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this Information ls prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission In error, pleas notify us by telephone by electronic mail immediately.

-------

-------

-----

-------

___ _

_ _ _ __ _ _ Exemptions: _______ _

-----

-------

___ _


\Document Number: Number of

Releasable in Full:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:

Att0111fY Work Product:

Common Interest in

Ga (Mif1D olapubHc

<http://minnesota.publicradio.org/abouUpeople/mpr people display.php?aut

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/02/10/saint-paul-problem-propertieslawsuit-goes-to-trial/


Worden, Jeanine M

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Popowich, Janice (CRT) [[email protected]) Frida , F'ebruary 10, 2012 2:44 PM

Lynn M; Pratt, Sara K; News update on Magner v. ag er - . Paul dropping Supreme Court appeal -Landlords' suit against St. Paul over 'problem properties' going to trial

.r<:l iC>J . .. . ... ..... ·· ·· · .... · ·· · ···· . . . . . . . . . ... ..... ... . .. .. ... ... .. . ... . .... ... ... ... ··· · · .... .. .. · ·· · · .. . ... · ··· · ····· · · · · . . . . . . . . ... ... · ··· ·· · · · ·· ···· ···· · ·· ··· ·· · · ·· ·· · · · · ····· ·· ·· · · · ··· · · · .

Landlords' suit against St. Paul over 'problem properties' going to trial

by Curtis Gilbert id=123> ,

Minnesota Public Radio

February 10, 2012

St. Paul, Minn. - The city of St. Paul announced Friday it will drop its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and go to trial against a group of landlords that sued the city over its aggressive housing code enforcement.

--------

__ _ _ _ _ _

-----


___ _

--------

-----

-------

----

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in


Document

Releasable in Full:

Number of

Privileges:



Common Interest in


Tanyna

as

n "


Domino, L

From: Mincberg, Elliot M Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11 :22 AM To: Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: FW: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"

FYI

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:20 AM To: Mincberg, Elliot M Subject: Fw: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"

Fyi

\Vall Street Journal - Editorial - 03 APR 12

The St. Paul Stall

The city clams up about its Supreme Court switcheroo. When St. Paul, Minnesota withdrew its lending discrimination case from the Supreme Court in February, the mayor's office explained that "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation." But now that a House oversight panel is looking into the decision, city officials aren't so chatty.

ln a February 27 letter, Representative Patrick McHenry asked Mayor Christopher Coleman to answer some questions. Why did St. Paul withdraw 1Vfagner v. Gallagher, which would have allowed the Court to judge for the first time the legality of using disparate-impact analysis under the 1968 Fair Housing Act? Why did the city, which questioned the use of statistics to determine discrimination, change its How much

<lid it on

discriminatory intent" and without a Supreme Court finding "the

Agreement

www.tijrcprints.com

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.ln a March 30 follow-up, Mr. McHenry and oversight Chairman Darrell Issa told St. Paul they intend "to examine the nature and extent of this federal int1uence, as well as the consequences for federal law enforcement actions under the Fair Housing Act." The letter noted the city can't claim attorney-client privilege "because Congress recognizes only executive privilege." Late yesterday a spokesman for St. Paul's mayor said the city "has no desire to be at odds" with the committee.

The House is right to ask if Justice or other federal agencies coerced St. Paul into withdrawing its case to avoid a ruling that would shut down Mr. Perez's political agenda. The city has until April 12 to answer or the committee may issue a subpoena to force a response.

on page A l4 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The St. Paul Stall.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jom.'S Reprints at l-800-843-0008 or visit

-------

-------

-----

-------

___ _

______ _ Exemptions: _______ _

-----


___ _


Document Number: Number of

Releasable in Full:

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:



Common Interest in

Kanovsky,


Helen R

From: Sent: To:

Mincberg, Elliot M Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11 :22 AM Kanevsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle

Subject: FW: Disparate Impact - Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"

FYI

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:20 AM To: Mlncberg, Elliot M Subject: Fw: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: "The St. Paul Stall"

Fyi

From: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2 12 11:15 AM

Ex 6 Subject: Disparate Impact -- Magner v. Gallagher: WSJ Editorial: ''The St. Paul Stall"

Wall Street Journal - Editorial- 03 APR 12

The St. Paul Stall

The city clams up about its Supreme Court switcheroo. When St. Paul, Minnesota withdrew its lending discrimination case from the Supreme Court in February, the mayor's office explained that "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation." But now that a House oversight panel is looking into the decision, city officials aren't so chatty.

In a February 27 letter, Representative Patrick McHenry asked Mayor Christopher Coleman to answer some questions. Why did St. Paul withdraw JWagner v. Gallagher, which would have allowed the Court to judge for the first time the legality of using disparate-impact analysis under the 1968 Fair Housing Act? Why did the city, which first questioned the use of statistics to determine discrimination, change its views? How much taxpayer money did it spend on the

the committee granted, but on did

not require a ofdiscriminatory intent" and without a Supreme Court finding "the enforcement actions. . will remain uncertain."

Agreement

www.uireprints.com

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.In a March 30 follow-up, Mr. McHenry and oversight Chairman Darrell Issa told St. Paul they intend "to examine the nature and extent of this federal influence, as well as the consequences for federal law enforcement actions under the Fair Housing Act." The letter noted the city can't claim attorney-client privilege "because Congress recognizes only executive privilege." Late yesterday a spokesman for St. Paul's mayor said the city "has no desire to be at odds" with the committee.

The House is right to ask if Justice or other federal agencies coerced St. Paul into withdrawing its case to avoid a ruling that would shut down Mr. Perez's political agenda. The city has until April 12 to answer or the committee may issue a subpoena to force a response.

appeared April 3, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The St. Paul StaU.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is fur your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

-------

-------

-----

-------

___ _

------- --------

-----

Attorney-Client: ______ _ ___ _


Document Number: Number of 1 Releasable in Full:

Releasable in

Privileges:


Attorney-Client:


Common Interest in


Privileges:



Common Interest in

of

Kanovsky,

www.naacpldf.org

Helen R


From: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R; Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Magner v. Gallagher - L DF amicus brief Attachments: USSC 10-1032 bsac NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc .. pdf

Helen and Michelle,

e interested in a copy of the amicus brief that LDF filed today in Magner v. Gallagher. It is

Best, •

Counsel to the Director of Litigation NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 1444 I Street NW, 10th floor Washington, DC 20005

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

------- __ ____ _

-------

-----Attorney-Client: ______ _

___ _ ----

----------�

______ _ Exemptions: _______ _

-----Attorney-Client: ______ _

___ _

__________________ __ _


Document Number: Number of Pages: ';) Releasable in Full:

Privileges:




Other:

Withhold Entirely:

Privileges:



Common Interest in

Originator Document:

Kanovsky,

n"'n"'"" '"""'"'"

nrnrnrn'f ... tl

ror•1n1.anr

1mrnec:t1ate1v

Helen R


From: Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:09 PM To: Kanovsky, Helen R Cc: Aronowitz, Michelle Subject: Disparate impact: HUD regulation and Supreme Court cert petition Attachments: Magner.pdf

Importance: High

Helen:

Before you and I turn our attention to Passover (I have two flourless chocolate rolls and ege,11>lant parmagiana still to make), I wanted to express my interest in HUD's ongoing consideration of a Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule. Many of us in the civil rights community have long thought that such a rule would provide some protection from a Supreme Court that may be poised to do away with disparate impact analysis a ltogether.

Now that the Supreme Court has called for a response to the cert petition in Magner v. Gallagher {see attached), many of us are quite nervous about the prospects. My firm is meeting internally tomorrow morning, and [ know we will be discussing the importance of the HUD rule. Not just any rule, but one that appropriately retlects the very high public defendant's burden in such a case, and one that docs not overly burden a plaintiff in a case involving a private defendant.

Can we visit about this when the holiday is over?

.- ' Reiman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036-2456

FAX: 2021728-0848

Website: www.relmanlaw.com Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia

NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments to it contain confidential or legally privileged information from the law firm of Reiman, Dane & Colfax PLLC. This information is for the use of !he intended If you are not the intended

that any or the of any action in reliance on the and that the documents should be returned to this firm

email

from the law firm If you are not the

you are !hat any any action in reliance on the the contained information is should be returned to this firm If you have received this email in error,

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc.Please consider the environment before printing !his emait

2

:dwfk ,qf - judicial watch … · :dwfk ,qf the . city of st. paul, mn, has given up in the magner...

Documents