Redlining: A Persistent Issue in American Lending Practices
Redlining, a discriminatory lending practice that disproportionately affects communities of color, continues to be a problem in the U.S., despite decades of civil rights enforcement. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have undermined these efforts, with moves to forgo new redlining challenges and even undo judgments and consent decrees in past cases.
The ABA’s Misleading Claims
Amidst this backdrop, the American Bankers Association (ABA) has released a white paper criticizing the Biden administration’s enforcement actions related to redlining. The ABA claims that recent challenges stretch the law and deviate from prior redlining cases, while also suggesting that redlining is not illegal. This paper, however, is misleading, as it advocates for a narrow view of fair lending, limited to cases involving overt evidence of discrimination.
The Importance of Addressing Redlining
Addressing redlining is crucial because it denies communities of color access to credit, homeownership, and wealth accumulation opportunities. Recent years have seen many banks demonstrating a commitment to eradicating discrimination and promoting financial inclusion. Members of the ABA who are opposed to redlining should therefore encourage the organization to take a more responsible stance.
A Critical Examination of the ABA’s Arguments
The ABA’s main argument is that recent enforcement activity relies too heavily on statistical evidence of discrimination, with little direct evidence of intentional bias. However, this overlooks the fact that the government has always used statistical proof, alongside other evidence, to establish that a lender avoids communities of color.
For instance, the Department of Justice’s 2024 complaint against OceanFirst Bank cited evidence such as the bank’s branches being located primarily in majority-white areas, the bank failing to advertise in communities of color, and racist comments from bank employees.
Understanding Discrimination Claims
When the ABA asserts that redlining cases lack direct evidence of intentional discrimination, it applies an incorrect standard. Discrimination claims typically rely on circumstantial evidence, including statistical evidence. In fact, as Justice Thomas explained in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, circumstantial evidence can be more compelling than direct evidence when proving discrimination.
The Scope of Remediation
The ABA’s final argument is that remedies for redlining should be limited to specific individuals who were denied or discouraged from seeking financing from the targeted lender. This view is flawed because systemic discrimination affects entire communities and should therefore be addressed on a broader scale.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ABA’s misguided arguments may inadvertently facilitate the Trump administration’s disregard for civil rights enforcement. However, these arguments do not reflect the law, nor are they consistent with the ABA’s stated opposition to redlining. The ABA should support its members’ efforts to ensure fair access to credit for all and refrain from advocating for positions that undermine civil rights protections.
For the original article and more information, click Here.
