Wells Fargo v. Miami

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 28 Jun 2016

1. Whether the term "aggrieved" in the Fair Housing Act imposes a zone-of-interests requirement more stringent than the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.
2. Whether the City is an "aggrieved person" under the Fair Housing Act.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed whether the City of Miami had standing to sue Wells Fargo and Bank of America under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for alleged discriminatory lending practices that led to a disproportionate number of foreclosures in minority neighborhoods. The city claimed these actions caused economic harm by reducing property tax revenues and increasing demand for municipal services. The Supreme Court held that cities could be considered 'aggrieved persons' under the FHA, thus granting them standing to bring such lawsuits. However, it remanded the case to determine if there was a direct enough connection between the banks’ conduct and Miami’s injuries, emphasizing proximate cause as a requirement for claims under this statute.