On June 26th, 2000, several housing tenants filed a lawsuit, known as King v. Blakely, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiffs sued the Blakely Housing Authority (“BHA”) under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §3601), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs, represented by a combination of public interest and private attorneys, sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Blakely Housing Authority to change its racially discriminatory housing policies. Plaintiffs also sought money damages as applicable.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the BHA racially-segregated its housing projects, with African-American residents being placed in certain projects and white residents being placed in others. Plaintiffs further alleged that one project was reserved almost exclusively for whites since it was built, while other four projects operated by BHA are currently over 90% occupied by African Americans, with few or no white residents. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged multiple instances of misconduct by the Executive Director of BHA, including that he made statements indicating his intention to maintain racial segregation in BHA housing and that he retaliated against plaintiffs by refusing to grant them housing when they participated in a demonstration against the segregated housing at Blakely.

Immediately after filing their initial complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. Before the motion was decided, on June 10th, 2002, the federal government filed a case against Blakely Housing Authority in United States v. Blakely. This action alleged the same misconduct that King v. Blakely alleged. After this case was filed, the court granted the motion to certify the class on September 18th, 2003. The class was certified as: “all past, present, and future African-American tenants and applicants of BHA, who were, are, or will be subjected to racial discrimination”

Eventually, the parties entered a consent decree, which was approved by the court on March 21st, 2005. The terms of the consent decree required the BHA to “create and submit for approval to the United States and HUD written Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Procedures for: (1) receiving, handling, processing, rejecting, and approving rental inquiries and applications made in-person, by telephone, or by other means; (2) assigning prospective tenants to new units; and (3) transferring existing tenants to different units.” Furthermore, the consent decree required BHA to send a certified check for $190,000 to the attorneys for private plaintiffs and another check for attorneys fees for plaintiff.

Finally, the terms of the consent decree were set for four years. The consent decree was terminated after the period elapsed in 2009. Then the case closed.

Raul Noguera-McElroy - 02/21/2019


compress summary