Jeff posted earlier about settlement of the Mt. Holly case shortly before argument in the Supreme Court. The case presented the question whether disparate impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination (or, on the other hand, whether plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination to prevail under the Act).
There are now some articles floating around the web explaining the terms of the settlement. Here's an excerpt from an AP story:
Officials in a southern New Jersey town approved a legal settlement today to end a high-profile housing discrimination case, just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court was to hear arguments on it. Under the agreement with Mount Holly township, a group of residents of the Mount Holly Gardens neighborhood will be able to get homes in a new development or money if they choose to move elsewhere. The deal halts one of the most anticipated Supreme Court cases of the terms. It was to be heard next month. Lawyers in the case say settlement talks had been in the works since before the high court agreed to take it on. The lawsuit grew out of opposition to a plan announced in 2002 in the community, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. The town wanted to raze the 329 modest brick homes in the aging Mount Holly Gardens, long a center of blight and crime, to make way for new houses, apartment buildings and stores.
