The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling Thursday, siding 5 to 4 with civil rights groups on the 1968 Fair Housing Act designed to combat racial discrimination in housing practices. The ruling means that housing entities can now be sued for "discriminatory effect" regardless of the "intent to discriminate."

The four liberal justices were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy in support of the non-profit group Inclusive Communities Project, which said the Texas housing authority had contributed to "segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods." The ruling affirms the idea that "disparate impact" (evidence that shows practices have discriminatory effects) can be used in housing discrimination lawsuits regardless of intent to discriminate.

CNN provides some background on the "disparate impact" case:

Civil rights advocates say such "disparate impact" claims are essential to combat subtle instances of discrimination, but some companies, developers and housing authorities say they cost time and money investigating actions made with good intentions. And they argue these claims force a state or private entity to engage in race-conscious decision-making to avoid legal liability.​ [...]

The case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, began in 2008, when the Inclusive Communities Project, a non-profit organization that seeks to promote racial integration in Dallas, sued a state agency charged with allocating tax credits to developers who build low-income housing projects. The ICP accused the Texas agency of disproportionately allocating the tax credits to properties in minority populated areas.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the ICP, and for years, other courts have allowed disparate impact claims to go forward. But critics say such claims have a negative impact on affordable housing.

The president of NAACP's Legal Defense and Educational Fund called for an "aggressive, affirmative enforcement" of the Fair Housing Act if we want to help heal our "deeply segregated" country. "There is a huge divide that exists between us," said NAACP's Sherrilyn Ifill. "Our country remains deeply segregated and we need not only provisions of the Fair Housing Act to be intact, but we need aggressive, and affirmative enforcement of the act by the federal government and by state jurisdictions." The Supreme Court's ruling today clearly provided the NAACP the "aggressive, affirmative" response they were seeking.