42 U.S.C. § 3615
Effect on State laws
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State, or of any other jurisdiction in which this subchapter shall be effective, that grants, guarantees, or protects the same rights as are granted by this subchapter; but any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: McKIVITZ v. Twp. of Stowe, 769 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Pa. 2010).
McKIVITZ v. Twp. of Stowe, 769 F. Supp. 2d 803 (W.D. Pa. 2010). “7 The FHA’s preemption provision, which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3615 , provides that “any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under [the FHA] shall to…”
Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe, 302 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2019). “13 In addition, 42 U.S.C. § 3615 provides: Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State, or of any other jurisdiction in which this subchapter shall be effective, that grants, guarantees, or protects…”
Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Ctr., Inc. v. Peters Twp., 273 F. Supp. 2d 643 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 3615 . The Supreme Court has instructed that zoning provisions describing who or how many people may compose a family unit, such as the Peters Township zoning provision which defines “Family” so as to include any number of people related by blood, marriage or…”
Phillips v. City of New York, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “This principle is contained in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000e-7) and in the Fair Housing Act ( 42 USC § 3615 ). The ADA explicitly makes this point as well: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and…”
Nelson Walker, & Fair Hous. Found. of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Mun., 272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001). “But because the FHA explicitly preempts any state law “that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter,” 42 U.S.C. § 3615 , we may not defer to state contract law principles in resolving this case.”
Astralis Condo. Ass'n v. Sec'y, United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. Ex Rel. García-Guillén, 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 3615 (expressly commanding that “any law of a State .”
Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., Nw. Opportunity Ctr. & Eluteria D. Maldonado, Intervening v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977). “See 42 U.S.C. § 3615 . . We note that Lincoln Green would conform with the standard set by the Village’s multiple family zoning classification.”
Gibson v. Cnty. of Riverside, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “7 has purported to require or permit actions that are discriminatory under the FHA, each version has been invalid during all relevant periods pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3615 . Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and injunctive relief will be granted based on the foregoing…”
Brad Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., a Utah Mun. Corp., 46 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 3615 . Thus, the law of a state or municipality is expressly preempted by the Fair Housing Act if it is a "discriminatory housing practice” under the Act.”
Child.'s All. v. City of Bellevue, 950 F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997). “§§ 3604 (a), 3604(f)(1), and 3617, the Court declares the Ordinance invalid pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3615 . 13 III. Constitutional Challenges Plaintiffs also argue that the Ordinance conflicts with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the federal constitution.”
United States v. City of Parma, Ohio, 661 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1981). “§ 3615 , provides in part “any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid.” This provision is not…”
Warren v. Delvista Towers Condo. Ass'n, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “42 U.S.C. § 3615 (2012) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.