Wells Fargo & Co., et al., Petitioners v. City of Miami, Florida; Bank of America Corp., et al., Petitioners v. City of Miami, Florida

Whether: (1) the zone of interest requirement for "aggrieved person[s] under the FHA is as broad as the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing; 2) the FHA requires more than indirect harm to be pled to establish proximate cause.

In 2013, the Respondent initiated separate, but nearly identical, suits against Petitioners for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). Respondent alleged that Petitioner consistently targeted minorities by denying them loans and in the event a loan was given, it contained many more predatory features than were given to similarly situated white individuals. The district court dismissed Respondent's FHA claims after determining that Respondent did not fall within the "zone of interest" and therefore lacked standing as well as failing to plead proximate cause and not meeting the statute of limitations. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the district court applied too narrow of a standard for "zone of interest" in FHA claims and that Respondent adequately alleged proximate cause. Petitioner's appealed to the Supreme Court to decide whether: (1) the zone of interest requirement for "aggrieved person[s] under the FHA is as broad as the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing; (2) if Respondent meets this standing requirement; and (3) the FHA requires more than indirect harm to be pled to establish proximate cause. Petitioners argue that recent case law dictates a more narrow reading of zone of interest under the FHA. Petitioners also argue that Respondent has not been sufficiently harmed to be injured and aggrieved under the FHA.