Keller, Jr., et al. v. City of Fremont, et al., No. 12-1702 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed these actions to enjoin enforcement of Ordinance No. 5165, which limited hiring and providing rental housing to "illegal aliens" and "unauthorized aliens," terms defined by the Ordinance. The district court severed and enjoined enforcement of certain rental provisions, concluding that they were preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. The court concluded, inter alia, that plaintiffs have failed to establish that any of the Ordinance's rental provisions were facially preempted by federal law; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Martinez Plaintiffs' motion to correct their "oversight or omission" in failing to plead a distinct FHA claim; because one of the Keller Plaintiffs had Article III standing to assert an FHA disparate impact claim, the court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim; on the merits, the Keller Plaintiffs could not identify "a viable alternative means" that would not have the same "discriminatory" effect and disparate impact on the portion of unlawfully presented aliens who are Latino and, therefore, this claim must be dismissed; and the Martinez Plaintiffs failed to prove their belated claims of actual conflict. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Case - Immigration and Nationality Act; Fair Housing Act. In facial challenge to Fremont, Nebraska ordinance, which limits providing rental housing to "illegal aliens" and "unauthorized aliens", the district court erred in concluding the provisions were preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ordinance does not have impermissible effect of "removing" a class of aliens from the city or intrude on the federally occupied "fields" of alien removal or alien registration or anti-harboring. As for conflict preemption, it would be speculative whether the rental provisions conflict with removal provisions of federal immigration law. In the Fair Housing Act claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Martinez Plaintiffs' motion to correct their oversight in failing to plead a disparate impact claim. The district court did not err in concluding Keller had standing as a landlord to assert a FHA claim. The district court erred in concluding the ordinance's rental provisions violated the FHA, as disparate impact claim was based solely on the effect an otherwise lawful ordinance may have on a subgroup of the unprotected class of aliens and does not violate the FHA. District court's rejection of claims that ordinance violated state law is affirmed. Judge Colloton concurs in the judgment on the FHA issue. Judge Bright dissents on the preemption issue.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.