Page:Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.pdf/29

This page has been validated.
1
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 13–1371


TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC., ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[June 25, 2015]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

I join Justice Alito's dissent in full. I write separately to point out that the foundation on which the Court builds its latest disparate-impact regime—Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971)—is made of sand. That decision, which concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes plaintiffs to bring disparate-impact claims, id., at 429–431, represents the triumph of an agency’s preferences over Congress' enactment and of assumption over fact. Whatever respect Griggs merits as a matter of stare decisis, I would not amplify its error by importing its disparate-impact scheme into yet another statute.

I

A

We should drop the pretense that Griggs' interpretation of Title VII was legitimate. "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include an express prohibition on policies or practices that produce a disparate impact." Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U. S. 557, 577 (2009). It did not include an implicit one either. Instead, Title VII’s operative provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a) (1964 ed.), addressed only employer decisions motivated by a protected characteristic. That