Golden Gate University Law Review


This Note argues that the test applied by the Ninth Circuit in Community House was unreasonably inflexible and inconsistent with the goals of the Fair Housing Act, and that, by allowing for only limited, inflexible exceptions, the court foreclosed an opportunity to expand free or affordable housing for homeless women, men, and families. By contrast, a more flexible approach that weighs the adverse impact on the alleged victim against the benefits of the offered justifications, would better serve the purposes of the Fair Housing Act by allowing each community to maximize the housing opportunities it offers.

Included in

Housing Law Commons