# Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. > Supreme Court of the United States · January 11, 1977 · 429 U.S. 252 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426634 ## Case - **Full name:** VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Et Al. v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 11, 1977 - **Citations:** 429 U.S. 252; 97 S. Ct. 555; 50 L. Ed. 2d 450; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 28 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Marshall - **Judges:** Powell, Marshall, White, Stevens, Brennan - **Cited by:** 4,073 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Chapman v. Nicholson, 579 F. Supp. 1504 (1984). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426634 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that inference of intentional discrimination may arise from circumstances such as the “historical background of the decision, ... particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes, ... [the] specific sequence of events leading up t… - explaining that discriminatory intent can be established through a pattern of racially-discriminatory impact "unexplainable on grounds other than race,” departures from normal procedures, "contemporary statements by members of the de-cisionmaking body,” or a suspicious "sequen… - finding standing when "it is inaccurate to say that MHDC suffers no economic injury from a refusal to rezone, despite the contingency provisions in its contract. MHDC has expended thousands of dollars on the plans for Lincoln Green and on the studies submitted to the Village i… - finding standing even though the requested relief removed only one barrier — zoning requirements — from construction of a housing development because the remaining barriers — such as financing — were mere "uncertainties” rather than “absolute barriers,” which permitted the cou… - holding that plaintiff real estate developer denied zoning permits to build low cost housing units had standing in his own right to bring suit against the city to redress defendant city’s alleged racially discriminatory purpose in denying the permits because the plaintiff had … ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Marshall, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in Parts I-III of the Court’s opinion. However, I believe the proper result would be to remand this entire case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and today’s opinion. The Court of Appeals is better situated *272 than this Court both to reassess the significance of the evidence developed below in light of the standards we have set forth and to determine whether the interests of justice require further District Court proceedings directed toward those standards. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426634. Public record. Not legal advice.