Supreme Court considers fairness in housing, healthcare

Fair housing. A Texas group called Inclusive Communities Project argued last week at the U.S. Supreme Court that Dallas neighborhoods are segregated because of the way tax credits are doled out. The group sued under the Fair Housing Act, claiming the tax credit policy has a disparate impact on minorities.

While the plain text of the Fair Housing Act protects minorities from discrimination by landlords or home sellers, it doesn’t protect them from policies that might have a negative effect on them. Arguments about what constitutes discrimination got heated.

“Racial disparity is not racial discrimination,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “The fact that the NFL is largely black players is not discrimination. Discrimination requires intentionally excluding people of a certain race.”

If the state wins, developers will keep building in mostly minority areas without the threat of being sued for discrimination. If the Inclusive Communities Project wins, more money will be allocated to put low-income homes in higher-income neighborhoods.

Medicaid shortage. A group of healthcare providers sued the state of Idaho over Medicaid reimbursement rates. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets those rates, but Idaho pays providers less than what CMS says it should. Medicaid is the biggest insurer in the country, with more than 68 million recipients.

The providers want the Supreme Court to order Idaho to pay the CMS rate under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says federal law trumps state law. But the state argues the providers don’t have standing to sue because Medicaid is a contract between the state and the government, and the doctors are not a party to it.

If the providers lose, they have the option of complaining directly to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But agency resolutions are slow, with little oversight, so the quicker solution would be for the courts to order states to comply with CMS. That decision could affect state budgets around the country.

Death-row debate. The justices agreed Friday to hear an appeal from Oklahoma death row inmates, who challenge the blend of drugs used to execute prisoners. Their petition to the court said scientific evidence shows the manner of executions causes needless pain and suffering. One of the petitioners won’t be around to hear the court’s decision: Charles Warner was executed Jan. 15. A jury in 1997 found Warner guilty of the rape and murder of 11-month-old Adrianna Waller.

Listen to “Legal Docket” on The World and Everything in It.