In the case of Town of Huntington, New York v. Huntington Branch, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over housing discrimination in which it was alleged that zoning ordinances perpetuated racial segregation. The NAACP claimed that by restricting multi-family dwellings to urban renewal areas - predominantly inhabited by African Americans and Hispanics - the town violated Title VIII of Civil Rights Act 1968 (Fair Housing Act). The District Court agreed with this claim but was reversed on appeal as it did not find intentional discrimination or disparate impact under Fair Housing Act. However, when brought before Supreme Court, they ruled in favor of NAACP stating that proof of discriminatory intent is not necessary to establish a violation under Fair Housing Act; showing discriminatory effect suffices.

In the dissenting opinion for Town of Huntington, New York v. Huntington Branch, NAACP, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by applying a disparate impact standard to evaluate whether there was racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. He contended that this approach went beyond what was intended by Congress when it enacted Title VIII and could potentially lead to judicial activism or legislating from the bench. Scalia believed that only intentional acts of discrimination should be considered under equal protection claims and not just policies with discriminatory effects. Furthermore, he disagreed with how evidence was evaluated in this case; he felt statistical disparities alone were insufficient proof without clear demonstration of causation between policy and effect.