The U.S. Supreme Court case Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2014, revolved around the issue of housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Inclusive Communities Project (ICP), a non-profit organization in Dallas that assists low-income families in obtaining affordable housing, sued the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for allegedly perpetuating racial segregation by disproportionately allocating low-income tax credits to minority-dominated neighborhoods. The ICP argued this was a violation of FHA as it had "disparate impact" on minorities even if there wasn't explicit discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICP with a 5-4 decision stating that claims based on disparate impact are legitimate under FHA; however, they also emphasized caution when applying this standard to avoid potential constitutional issues or unnecessary regulatory constraints.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority misinterpreted the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) language and intent. He contended that FHA was designed to prevent intentional discrimination, not disparate impact claims where discriminatory effects are alleged without proof of discriminatory intent. Alito criticized the majority for relying on policy arguments rather than statutory interpretation, stating their decision could lead to unintended consequences such as promoting racial quotas in housing or discouraging development in low-income areas due to fear of litigation. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential constitutional issues raised by interpreting FHA to include disparate impact claims.