The case of Alexander et al. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al., 1978, revolved around the issue of racial discrimination in public housing allocation in Chicago. The plaintiffs were a group of African-American tenants who alleged that they had been discriminated against by the defendants - namely, the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), City officials, and private developers involved in federally-assisted housing programs within Chicago city limits. They claimed these entities perpetuated segregation through their actions or lack thereof to prevent it. The Supreme Court held that HUD was obligated under Title VI to ensure non-discrimination not only directly but also indirectly when federal funds are distributed to local agencies for public housing projects. However, it ruled that there was insufficient evidence proving intentional racial discrimination on part of HUD or other defendants; hence no violation could be established under either Title VI or Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, while acknowledging systemic segregation patterns existed due to past discriminatory practices (de facto segregation), the court stated this alone did not constitute a breach unless deliberate intent (de jure) could be proven.

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander et al. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to uphold HUD's interpretation of Title VIII was incorrect because it expanded the scope of federal power beyond what Congress intended when it passed the Fair Housing Act in 1968. He contended that by allowing HUD to require state and local governments to "affirmatively further" fair housing, even if they were not directly involved in discriminatory practices, would lead to an overreach of federal authority into local affairs. Furthermore, he believed this could potentially undermine efforts towards voluntary compliance with civil rights laws as it places too much emphasis on punitive measures rather than cooperative problem-solving between different levels of government. Finally, he expressed concern about procedural fairness given that these requirements were imposed without clear statutory authorization or adequate notice and opportunity for public comment.