COURT LETS STAND HOUSING BIAS RULING

MINORITIES MUST PROVE EFFECT, BUT NOT INTENTION, OF ZONING LAWS

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected the arguments of the Reagan administration, and let stand a ruling that said minorities need prove only that zoning laws had the effect of discriminating.

The administration had argued that minorities should be required to prove intentional discrimination in order to win housing bias cases. But the justices affirmed 6 to 3 a ruling that a Huntington, N.Y., zoning law requiring low-income housing be built only in a mostly nonwhite urban renewal area had the effect of continuing segregation.

The Justice Department, in an unusual move, had filed a brief asking the court to declare that anyone claiming discrimination must prove that government officials intended to keep out blacks, rather than simply showing that an ordinance had the effect of discriminating against minorities.

The four-page, unsigned opinion specifically said the court would "not reach the question" of which legal standard -- the effect of a law or the intentions of the lawmakers -- was the appropriate one. "Without endorsing the precise analysis of the court of appeals," the opinion said, "we are satisfied" that a discriminatory effect was shown "and that the sole justification proffered to rebut {the allegations} was inadequate."

Kerry A. Scanlon, fair-housing director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the ruling "leaves intact the unanimous circuit court decisions -- 10 so far -- that proof of discriminatory intent is not required" to show a violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

"They clearly are endorsing" the broader standard, Scanlon said. "They rejected the Justice Department invitation to narrow the scope of protections under the {1968} law," he said, adding that "they were asked to do so by the Justice Department and they did not mention that position."

Justices Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said they would have heard arguments in the case, Town of Huntington v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The Justice Department won a victory in another housing case in which the court let stand a ruling that struck down the use of racial quotas to maintain integration at Starrett City, a huge subsidized housing project in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The project had used a quota system to ensure that about 60 percent of its tenants were white. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory housing practices, but the tenants and owners of the 20,000-resident project argued that the quota was justified because its purpose was to maintain integration by stopping "white flight."

The court, without dissent, declined to review a decision by a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel last March that the 1968 law does not allow "rigid racial quotas of indefinite duration to maintain a fixed level of integration . . ." Starrett City cannot legally use quotas restricting "minority access to scarce and desirable" rental housing, the panel said.

The ruling cast doubt about the legality of similar plans across the country, including in Montgomery County, where about one-third of the 950 low-income units are filled using a quota system. The Justice Department, which sued the complex in 1984, has also sued housing authorities in Chicago and Charlottesville over the use of similar plans.Justice Byron R. White dissented from the court's decision not to hear the appeal in Starrett City Associates v. U.S.

In other action, the court said it would decide whether the federal government, when it attempts to seize drug dealers and other criminals' illegal profits, may also take the money defendants might use to pay their lawyers.The practice has been strongly opposed by criminal defense lawyers.

The justices agreed to review two conflicting rulings, one involving a drug dealer from New York and another involving Northern Virginia drug dealer Christopher Reckmeyer. Reckmeyer was sentenced in 1975 to 17 years in prison and ordered to forfeit all his assets, including money for his lawyers, the Washington firm of Caplin & Drysdale.

The firm, seeking $171,513 in unpaid bills, argues in Caplin & Drysdale v. U.S. that federal assets forfeiture laws are aimed only at making sure criminals did not retain their ill-gotten gains and were not intended to authorize forfeiture of legitimate attorneys fees paid to a lawyer in good faith.

The New York case, U.S. v. Monsanto, involves an appeal of a ruling allowing an accused heroin dealer access to his money so he can pay his lawyer to represent him at trial.

In other action yesterday, the court said it would:

Resolve a dispute between homelessness activist Mitch Snyder and Baltimore sculptor James Earl Reid over the copyright to a statue entitled "Third World America," described as a contemporary Nativity scene depicting a homeless black family huddled over a steam grate. The case, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, involves an interpretation of confusing "work made for hire" provisions in the Copyright Act of 1976.

Review the case of a Dallas high school football coach who sued the city claiming he lost his job at a predominantly black school because he was white. The court agreed to hear his appeal in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, as well as the school district's appeal that it can not be held liable for damages because his transfer was not part of an official policy.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.