Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Bank of America Corporation, et al. v. City of Miami, Florida

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 14-14543, 14-14544 · judgment May 3, 2019

GVR'd · March 2, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, an Eleventh Circuit decision below, and a business petitioner, and down for a state or local-government respondent.

Question presented

In its prior decision in this case, this Court held that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) requires proof of proximate cause in the same way as other federal statutes with common-law roots. Following the relevant “directness principles,” the Court held, generally limits recovery to injury at the “first step” of the causal chain. Bank of America v. City of Miami, 137 S. Ct. 1296 (2017). On remand, the Eleventh Circuit held that the governing “directness principles” do not limit the length of the causal chain, but instead require only some “logical bond” or “meaningful and logical continuity” between a statutory violation and the claimed injury. Miami alleges that the terms of loans made to individual borrowers led, through a lengthy causal chain, to lost tax revenue. The Eleventh Circuit held that claim sufficiently “direct.” The question presented is: Whether, under this Court’s decisions in this and other proximate-cause cases, the FHA’s proximatecause element requires more than just some “logical bond” between a statutory violation and the claimed injury.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
William McGinley Jay
Goodwin Procter, LLP

For respondent
Robert S. Peck
Center for Constitutional Litigation, PC

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
4 cert-stage

Related
Vide, 19-688

Proceedings

  1. Apr 03 2020
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Mar 02 2020
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is vacated as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
  3. Feb 13 2020
    Reply Brief in Support of Suggestion of Mootness filed. (Distributed)
  4. Feb 12 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
  5. Feb 11 2020
    Reply of petitioners Bank of America Corporation, et al. filed.
  6. Feb 03 2020
    Suggestion of Mootness filed.
  7. Jan 27 2020
    Brief of respondent City of Miami, Florida in opposition filed.
  8. Dec 26 2019
    Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
  9. Dec 26 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. VIDED.
  10. Dec 24 2019
    Brief amici curiae of American Bankers Association et al. filed. VIDED.
  11. Dec 20 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. VIDED.
  12. Dec 12 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 27, 2020.
  13. Dec 09 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 26, 2019 to January 27, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  14. Nov 25 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 26, 2019)