In the 2005 case of Lincoln Property Company, et al. v. Christophe Roche, et ux., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tenant could sue his landlord under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for racial discrimination without having direct evidence of discriminatory intent or motive. The plaintiff, Christophe Roche, alleged that Lincoln Property Company had discriminated against him based on race by failing to renew his lease and evicting him from his apartment in Virginia. The lower courts dismissed Roche's claim because he did not provide any direct proof of racial animus by the landlord. The Supreme Court reversed this decision and held that tenants do not need to show direct evidence of discriminatory intent under FHA; instead they can use circumstantial evidence to prove their claims if it creates an inference of discrimination. This ruling broadened protections for tenants under FHA and clarified how these cases should be evaluated in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Lincoln Property Company v. Roche, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims simply because they were related to a federally subsidized housing program was an unwarranted expansion of federal power. He contended that there was no clear congressional intent in the statute at issue (the Brooke Amendment) to confer such broad jurisdiction on federal courts. Furthermore, he noted that this interpretation could potentially open up a wide range of local disputes involving federally funded programs - from education to healthcare - to litigation in federal court, which would be contrary to principles of judicial restraint and respect for states' rights. Finally, he criticized the majority's reliance on policy arguments about ensuring uniformity and protecting vulnerable tenants as insufficient justification for their expansive reading of the law.