Columns

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

By Rabih Hamawi
Law Office of Rabih Hamawi P.C.

Many policyholders who have disputes with their insurers, and decide to sue them, often find themselves asking the same pressing question: “How long will this lawsuit take and what can I expect?” It’s a natural concern, as insurance claims—especially those involving significant property damage, fire losses, or denied insurance coverage—can have a major impact on an insured-plaintiff's finances, daily life, and peace of mind.

While every lawsuit is unique and timelines can vary depending on the complexity of the case, insurance lawsuits typically take at least one to two years, not including appeals. 

This is due to the multiple stages involved in litigation, including filing the complaint, exchanging evidence, engaging in discovery, participating in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution, and potentially going to trial. By understanding these stages and what to expect at each step, plaintiffs can set realistic expectations, plan accordingly, and remain proactive throughout the legal process.

Preparing for a Successful Insurance Lawsuit

Success in an insurance lawsuit doesn’t start in the courtroom—it starts long before you file. It starts when you report a claim for the very first time. Preparation is everything. This means that as a start, you must carefully review your policy, organize all correspondence with your insurer, gather photos and videos, repair estimates, invoices, and any expert reports that support your claim.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your case allows you to anticipate challenges and respond effectively. Being thorough at this stage not only strengthens your position but also sets the tone for the entire litigation process, giving you confidence and control as you move forward. The more prepared you are, the more likely your case will proceed smoothly and increase your chances of a favorable outcome.

Filing the Lawsuit 

The process begins when your attorney formally files a complaint with the court. In an insurance lawsuit, this usually involves claims for property damage, fire loss, or denied insurance coverage. Once filed, the insurance company is then officially notified and served, and it is required to respond, by answering the complaint.

The Answer and Preliminary Motions

After serving your complaint on you insurer, it typically has a set period of time to file an answer. When it answers, the insurer admits or denies your claims and may raise defenses. At this stage, either party may also file preliminary motions, such as motions to dismiss, which can slightly extend the timeline.

Discovery Phase

The discovery phase is one of the most time-intensive parts of litigation. During discovery, both sides exchange evidence, documents, and witness information. Depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production help build each party’s case. In insurance disputes, this phase can take several months or even over a year, especially if experts are involved, such as engineers or fire investigators.

Pre-Trial Mediation and Motions

Even before a trial, there are often opportunities to resolve the case. Settlement negotiations or mediation can sometimes resolve disputes faster. But if negotiations fail, parties may file pre-trial motions to clarify issues, exclude evidence, or request summary disposition or judgment. Each motion can add weeks or months to the process.

Trial

If the case proceeds to trial, the court schedules hearings and trial dates, which can be influenced by the court’s docket. A typical trial may last several days to weeks, depending on the complexity of the case.

Post-Trial and Appeals

After the trial, either party may file appeals, which can extend the resolution timeline by additional months or even years. But even without appeals, most insurance disputes take at least two years from filing to resolution, and sometimes more.

Key Takeaways 

Insurance lawsuits are often complex and involve detailed evidence and expert testimony.

The process typically lasts one to two years, or more.

Understanding each stage—filing, discovery, pre-trial motions, trial, and possible appeals—helps policyholders stay prepared and avoid surprises.

If you are dealing with a denied insurance claim or ongoing insurance dispute, working with an experienced insurance attorney can streamline the process, ensure your rights are protected, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve.
 –––
Attorney & Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133. 

Very few business lawsuits arrive without warning. In practice, most disputes give off clear signals long before a demand letter appears or a complaint is filed. The difficulty is not that those signs are hidden, but that they are easy to rationalize away when you are focused on running a company.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton &?Tomich PLC

Very few business lawsuits arrive without warning. In practice, most disputes give off clear signals long before a demand letter appears or a complaint is filed. The difficulty is not that those signs are hidden, but that they are easy to rationalize away when you are focused on running a company.

After years of working with businesses as outside general counsel, a pattern emerges. The same behaviors, the same shifts in tone, and the same breakdowns in relationships tend to precede litigation. When those signals are recognized early, many disputes can be resolved quietly. When they are ignored, the path to court is often difficult to avoid.

One of the earliest indicators is a sudden change in communication. When a customer, vendor, partner, or employee who was once responsive begins to go quiet, something is usually happening behind the scenes. Emails go unanswered. Calls are returned late, if at all. Meetings are postponed or canceled. The tone, once informal and collaborative, becomes careful or distant.

People rarely disengage when they feel satisfied or secure. Silence is often strategic. It allows time to gather information, review documents, and seek advice without alerting the other side. In many disputes, this quiet period marks the transition from frustration to preparation.

Another common warning sign is a noticeable decline in contract performance. Missed deadlines, inconsistent quality, or unexpected disputes over invoices often signal that a business relationship is under strain. In some cases, one party begins reinterpreting the scope of work or insisting on contract terms that had previously been applied loosely or not at all.

As performance drifts, trust erodes. Once trust begins to break down, parties tend to document more aggressively. Emails become longer and more formal. Minor issues are memorialized. Phrases like “that’s not what we agreed to” appear with increasing frequency. This shift toward documentation is rarely accidental; it often reflects a growing concern that the relationship may not end cooperatively.

Employment disputes follow a similar pattern, though they usually begin on a more personal level. Employees rarely frame concerns in legal terms at the outset. Instead, they express feelings of unfairness or being singled out. Statements such as “I don’t feel supported,” “this feels like retaliation,” or “management doesn’t treat people equally” often appear before any formal complaint is made.

Even when management disagrees with the employee’s perspective, these statements matter. They signal that the employee is beginning to view workplace issues through the lens of rights and protections. 

Without careful handling, what starts as a workplace grievance can evolve into a claim that carries legal and reputational consequences.

Another strong indicator of impending conflict is a sudden insistence on documentation. Customers who previously accepted work without question may begin demanding detailed reports, timestamped records, or strict adherence to contractual procedures. Requests for clarification about conversations that occurred months earlier may surface unexpectedly.

This change is rarely about organization alone. More often, it reflects an effort to build a record; either to justify withholding payment or to support a future claim. When this happens, it becomes especially important for a business to ensure that its own records are accurate, complete, and consistent.

Breakdowns with vendors or partners also tend to show themselves early. A party who begins ignoring payment terms, confidentiality obligations, or performance standards may be experiencing financial strain or reevaluating the relationship. In other cases, they may believe that the other side breached first. Once formed, that belief often becomes the foundation of a legal dispute.

One of the more subtle signals appears in casual conversation. When someone mentions having spoken to a family member or friend who is a lawyer, or raises concerns about whether something is “legal,” the dynamic has shifted. These comments suggest that legal options are being explored, even if no formal steps have been taken.

Finally, there is the instinctive sense that something is off. Business owners are often quick to dismiss that feeling, telling themselves that tensions will pass or that long-standing relationships will prevent escalation. 

In hindsight, many disputes can be traced back to a moment when a concern was noticed and then set aside.

When these warning signs appear, timing matters. Issues addressed early can often be resolved with a clarifying conversation, a written adjustment, or a modest course correction. Left unattended, the same issues tend to harden into positions that are difficult to unwind.

Litigation is rarely the product of a single event. More often, it is the end result of a series of missed opportunities to intervene. Businesses that pay attention to the early signals are better positioned to protect their operations, relationships, and resources before conflict becomes unavoidable.

There is a moment in the legal profession that receives surprisingly little attention. It is not the first day of law school. Not graduation. Not even bar passage itself.
It is the space between passing the bar exam and becoming licensed—the quiet, psychological crossing from Juris Doctor to Esquire. And for many professionals, that moment carries more weight than they ever expected.

By Dan Ringo

There is a moment in the legal profession that receives surprisingly little attention. It is not the first day of law school. Not graduation. Not even bar passage itself.

It is the space between passing the bar exam and becoming licensed—the quiet, psychological crossing from Juris Doctor to Esquire. And for many professionals, that moment carries more weight than they ever expected.

For years, many of us have lived in an in-between identity. We have an education. We speak the language. We analyze, advise, and operate with legal rigor. Yet we hesitate sometimes reflexively to claim the title we trained for.

If any of the following sound familiar, you are not alone:

Are you tired of correcting colleagues and family members who call you an attorney?

Are you tired of prefacing comments with, “but I’m not a licensed attorney…”?

Have you ever felt slighted when someone made it clear you weren’t an attorney or hadn’t passed the bar—as if questioning the legitimacy of your legal knowledge or your skill set?

This is the psychological middle ground many JDs occupy: credentialed in education, capable in practice, yet professionally unfinished.

You earned the JD. But you never took that final step to becoming “Esq.”

The Identity Shift No One Prepares You For

Passing the bar is not merely an academic achievement, it is an identity transformation.

For professionals who built full careers before law, this shift can feel disorienting. You may already carry titles like executive, consultant, engineer, manager, or entrepreneur. Becoming “Attorney” does not replace those identities; it reframes them. It sharpens your authority, clarifies your role, and fundamentally changes how others perceive your voice in the room.

Yet many JDs delay or abandon the bar not because of inability, but because of timing, bandwidth, and structure. Life expands. Careers deepen. Responsibilities multiply. The window never seems to open.

But here is a truth worth stating plainly: no one who worked for a JD would willingly refuse the chance to become Esq. The desire is there. The path exists. What is often missing is permission—to re-engage seriously, intentionally, and without apology.

I Know This Middle Space Personally

I sat for the bar in 2021 at age 47 while working full-time. I believed my professional discipline would carry me. It did not.

I missed the exam by eight points not because I lacked capability, but because I underestimated the immersion and structure required. I tried to “fit” bar prep around life instead of temporarily reorganizing life around bar prep.

Four years later, at age 51, still working full-time, I returned with intention, discipline, and a clear plan. This time, I crossed the finish line.

The difference was not intelligence. It was execution.

Why Finishing Matters—Professionally and Economically

A JD is powerful. A JD with a law license is transformative.

Licensed attorneys earn, on average, significantly more over the course of their careers than bachelor’s-degree holders and often substantially more than JDs in non-licensed roles. Median attorney compensation now exceeds $150,000 nationally, and the long-term earnings delta compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars over a career.

Beyond compensation, licensure unlocks mobility. The Uniform Bar Exam allows portability across jurisdictions, creating geographic and professional flexibility non-licensed JDs simply do not have.

Then there is access: bar associations, leadership pipelines, mentoring circles, CLE communities, and professional networks that amplify credibility and opportunity. “Esq.” is not merely a suffix—it is an entry credential to an ecosystem.

The Commitment Is Smaller Than You Think

The hardest part is already behind you. You earned the degree.

What remains is not another program or years of schooling, but a defined season of focus:

   • A committed exam date
   • A disciplined study structure
   • Protected time
   • Accountability
   • A mindset shift

The bridge from JD to Esq. is not miles wide. It is a short, concentrated push—if approached honestly and deliberately.

Why Many JDs Stall—and How to Move Forward

Delay has a cost. Each year unlicensed widens the opportunity gap.

Restarting does not get easier. Life does not slow down on its own.

And “Esq.” carries identity weight. It validates your training and positions you with authority.

But here is the reframe that matters most: you are not behind. You are unfinished.

An Action Plan for Completion

1. Commit to an exam date.

2. Restructure your schedule for a defined study window.

3. Choose a preparation model that enforces accountability.

4. Build a repeatable daily routine.

5. Simulate exam conditions regularly

6. Engage your bar community early.

7. Adopt the identity: Esq. in progress.

This is not guesswork. It is execution.

Finish What You Started

Your JD is an investment. Your Esq. is the return.

No one earns a Juris Doctor intending to stop short. That final credential is within reach. It requires structure, commitment, and a temporary season of sacrifice.

If it was possible at 52, with a full-time executive role and real responsibilities, it is possible for you.

Your journey is not over. It is waiting for completion.

Finish it. Step into it. Become who you trained to be.
—————
Dan Ringo, Esq. is the Vice President of Operations and Compliance for SEEL, LLC, a Detroit based Energy Efficiency Program Implementer. He is also author of “JD to Esq: Passing the Bar Past 50.”

Many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

By Zana Tomich
Dalton & Tomich

Many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

The businesses that struggle in 2026 will not be caught off guard by a brand-new law. More often, problems grow out of familiar issues that were left unattended for too long. The companies that do well tend to be the ones that treat legal planning as part of running the business, not something reserved for emergencies.

Artificial Intelligence Is Now a Business Risk, Not a Tech Experiment

Most Michigan companies I work with are already using artificial intelligence in some form, often without calling it that. It shows up in hiring platforms, marketing tools, customer communications, and internal drafting. As 2026 unfolds, the legal conversation around artificial intelligence has shifted. The question is no longer whether businesses are using it, but whether they understand how it is being used and who is responsible when something goes wrong.

Michigan does not yet have a stand-alone artificial intelligence statute, but federal guidance is increasingly shaping how courts and regulators evaluate automated decision-making, particularly in employment and consumer-facing contexts. At the same time, contracts are quietly doing much of the regulating. Vendors and customers are asking for representations about artificial intelligence use, data sources, human oversight, and cybersecurity safeguards. Under Michigan law, those provisions are likely to be enforced as written, which means companies need to be comfortable with the commitments they are making before they sign.

Data privacy expectations are catching up with smaller companies

Many Michigan business owners still assume data privacy is an issue only for large technology companies. That assumption is becoming riskier each year. As additional state privacy laws take effect across the country, Michigan businesses can find themselves subject to new requirements simply by collecting data from customers or users who live elsewhere.

Michigan’s Identity Theft Protection Act has been in place for years, but expectations around compliance have matured. Regulators increasingly expect written policies, documented safeguards, and a clear plan for responding to a breach. 

Informal practices that once seemed reasonable can look careless when reviewed after an incident, especially when multiple states are involved.

Worker Classification and Remote Work Remain High-Risk Areas

Few areas create more avoidable exposure for Michigan companies than worker classification. In 2026, both federal agencies and Michigan regulators continue to scrutinize independent contractor arrangements, particularly in professional services, logistics, and remote roles. The analysis remains highly fact-specific, and mistakes often lead to cascading consequences that include wage claims, tax exposure, and benefit issues.

Remote and hybrid work have added another layer of complexity. Wage and hour compliance, overtime tracking, and expense reimbursement obligations do not disappear simply because work happens off-site. Many employee handbooks and compensation structures no longer reflect how work is actually performed, which can leave well-intentioned employers exposed.

Michigan Business Transitions Are Accelerating

Across Michigan, more owners are beginning to think seriously about what comes next. For some, that means a sale. For others, it means an internal buyout or a generational transition. Private equity interest remains strong, but buyers are far less forgiving of informality than they once were. Gaps in governance, undocumented processes, and weak cybersecurity practices tend to surface quickly during due diligence and often affect value.

Even companies that are not actively marketing themselves benefit from thinking like a future buyer. Clear decision-making authority, clean financial practices, and documented systems tend to make businesses easier to operate and more resilient, regardless of whether a transaction occurs.

Nonprofits and Mission-Driven Entities Face More Oversight

Michigan nonprofits and organizations that work closely with them are operating under increased scrutiny in 2026. The Michigan Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Section continues to focus on governance practices, conflicts of interest, and fundraising transparency, while the Internal Revenue Service remains attentive to board independence and compliance.

At the same time, more organizations are exploring benefit corporations and other hybrid structures to balance mission and sustainability. These models can be effective, but only when the underlying governance documents clearly define roles, authority, and fiduciary obligations.

Final Thought

What unites these trends is accountability. Regulators, customers, employees, and business partners are asking better questions and expecting clearer answers. Michigan law has long favored preparation over improvisation, and that remains true in 2026.
Companies that integrate legal foresight into everyday decision-making, rather than treating counsel as a last resort, will be best positioned to manage risk, protect value, and grow with confidence.
2026 is well underway. The opportunity now is to mind your Michigan business before someone else is forced to do it for you.
—————
Zana Tomich is a seasoned attorney with over two decades of experience advising businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Law, it seems, is changing rapidly at the state and federal level. It can be difficult to keep up with the transformation of entire areas of substantive law. There is a kind of reordering of things, which includes revisiting established precedents to correct perceived legal errors in prior rulings. 

By J.J. Conway
J.J. Conway Law

Law, it seems, is changing rapidly at the state and federal level. It can be difficult to keep up with the transformation of entire areas of substantive law. There is a kind of reordering of things, which includes revisiting established precedents to correct perceived legal errors in prior rulings. 

The Michigan Supreme Court has distinguished itself nationally by taking a measured approach. Although the justices are popularly elected, the Court doesn’t appear to be actively looking for ways to take up controversial issues. The Court has shown a willingness to reexamine precedent, however. One case the Court should look at is Nehra v. Provident Life and Accident Company, 454 Mich. 110 (1997) involving the interpretation of disability insurance contracts for professionals like surgeons. 

If the case sounds unfamiliar, it is. 

Even seasoned Supreme Court advocates hadn’t heard of it. Nehra is rarely cited and even more rarely followed. Most cases that cite it, distinguish it. Nehra is a decision that proves again the old adage that ‘bad facts can make bad law.’  The problem with Nehra – in addition to being a bad decision – is that it serves to undermine the long-term financial security of professionals in certain industries, particularly medicine. 

In Nehra, the plaintiff, a dentist, filed an insurance claim with his long-term disability insurance carrier. His policy provided coverage in the event he could not regularly perform his specific occupation — dentist — if he became ill or he had suffered “injuries.” 

The issue in Nehra centered on what constitutes an “injury” in a disability insurance contract. The contract in Nehra states that the term “injuries” means “accidental bodily injuries occurring while your policy is in force.”  As contrasted with the term “sickness,” which under the contract “means sickness or disease which is first manifested while your policy is in force.” The contract did not define the term “accidental bodily injuries.” Nehra, 454 Mich. at 112.

In his application, the plaintiff listed “bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome” as being one of the causes of his disability along with “duodenal ulcer with hemorrhage.” His claim was approved, and he began collecting benefits. 

The decision suggests that Nehra had not realized that his disability contract made a distinction regarding the cause of his disability. Under the contract, if his disability were a “sickness,” his monthly benefits would end at age 65. If his disability stemmed from “injuries,” on the other hand, he could receive benefits over a lifetime. 

After collecting benefits for years, Nehra attempted to change the cause of his disability to “injury” from “sickness.” Nehra argued that his diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome was the result of a series of repetitive motion injuries that qualified him for the lifetime benefit under the “injuries” provision of his contract. The medical record on this point was seemingly underdeveloped.

Nehra’s claim was denied, and a lawsuit followed. The trial court dismissed his case, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reinstated it, finding there was an issue of fact as to the cause of Nehra’s disability. From there, the Supreme Court granted leave and reversed the Appeals Court reinstating the dismissal. 

The Supreme Court reasoned that the case was governed principally by two statutes that have nothing to do with disability insurance. First, the Supreme Court looked to the provisions of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act to determine the meaning of the word “injury.”  The Court also looked to Michigan’s No-Fault Act to determine the meaning of an “injury.”  The concept of a repetitive motion type injury was not supported by the Court’s reading of either statute. The Court found that an “injury” was a precipitating event that led to the claimant’s condition, not a pattern of micro-injuries over a sustained period of time.

Other courts have rejected this analysis. One federal court wrote that it had never heard of a “repetitive motion sickness.” Chapman v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 555 F. Supp. 3d 713, 724 (D. Minn. 2021).

Nehra is not a particularly strong or persuasive decision, and upon closer examination, its underlying analysis is flawed. 

Both the Workers Compensation Act and the Michigan No-Fault Act are statutes that regulate mandatory insurance systems. The two statutes cited mandate that individuals and businesses purchase specific forms of insurance, and the cited laws create a uniformity among huge segments of the state’s population. 

A private disability contract is a contract that is voluntary and its purchase is discretionary. The terms that govern the contract are between the two contracting parties, and Michigan does not regulate the definitions that appear in a disability insurance contract. 

The Nehra case is an outlier and makes little sense in our modern, professional world. 

Here’s an example. Nehra is routinely cited to try to defeat the legitimate claims of surgeons who have suffered spinal injuries during the practice of their profession. Surgeons experience a significantly higher rate of spinal problems compared with the general population. 

By some estimates, nearly 75% of all surgeons suffer from back problems. Some surgical specialties have a rate of spinal injuries as high as 65% of the entire occupational category. And this is a growing trend. 

With the consolidation of medical practices, the specialization of surgical practices, and increased patient need, surgeons are seeing their caseloads increase. The more surgeons work, the greater the risk of injury to their own spines. 

Compounding matters, surgeons work in physical positions where their bodies are contorted for long periods of time; further, they are required to wear equipment necessary to perform surgery, including magnetic loupes and heavy, protective lead aprons. Collectively, this contributes to putting pressure on the neck and back and often results in spinal injuries over time. Undoubtedly, their medical conditions are caused by “injuries,” not illnesses.  

Nehra is a little known, rarely cited case; yet, it increasingly hangs out there as an impediment for legitimately disabled medical professionals within our state who entered into expensive disability contracts in the good faith understanding that their injuries (not just narrowly defined ones), would be covered. Nehra is not good law, comparatively speaking, and serves little purpose to continue. The Michigan Supreme Court should give it another look and consider overruling it. 
–––––––
John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

The federal Fair Housing Act deserves wider recognition for the powerful logic at its core, according to Professor Noah Kazis.
In a recent article in the Virginia Law Review, Kazis, an assistant professor of law at Michigan Law, argues that the “radical” approach of the Fair Housing Act goes well beyond the transactional focus of the employment protections in the Civil Rights Act.

By Bob Needham
Michigan Law

The federal Fair Housing Act deserves wider recognition for the powerful logic at its core, according to Professor Noah Kazis.

In a recent article in the Virginia Law Review, Kazis, an assistant professor of law at Michigan Law, argues that the “radical” approach of the Fair Housing Act goes well beyond the transactional focus of the employment protections in the Civil Rights Act.

“For all the Fair Housing Act’s many weaknesses, for all its ineffectiveness in practice, the act has always had radical ambitions,” Kazis writes. “If those ambitions are recognized, they can, perhaps, be built upon.”

Kazis recently answered five questions about his insights:

1. How big a problem is housing discrimination in 2025?

It’s one of those things where you can look at the glass as half full or half empty. 

Half full: The amount of discrimination goes down every year in surveys, and residential segregation goes down. 

Half empty: Discrimination is still common, and given how intense residential segregation was in the midcentury, segregation levels are still quite high. The average Black/white segregation level is closer to complete segregation than complete integration, with segregation worst in the Northeast and the Midwest. Hispanic/white segregation has not been improving, partly because it has increased in New York and Los Angeles. 

There’s racial discrimination in how many units are shown to renters and home buyers based on race, along with many other elements of the housing process. There’s also discrimination on the basis of all the other protected characteristics, like disability, family status, religion, and gender.

All of this has immense implications for which homes people buy at what price, and, therefore, for wealth; for where people live, and, therefore, for integration, for access to schools, and for all the other things that neighborhoods offer. 

2. Your paper acknowledges some common criticisms of the Fair Housing Act. What are some of the issues with it?

The conventional wisdom on the Fair Housing Act is that it has been underwhelming and relatively unsuccessful, compared to the other two major pillars of the 1960s civil rights statutes: the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. We saw fast transformations in those other areas, but not in housing, for a number of reasons. 

The Fair Housing Act was, in some ways, more controversial at the time because it was controversial in the North, not just in the South. So to get it passed, the compromise included weak enforcement provisions. 

Those were fixed in 1988, but that weakness certainly defined the first 20 years of the act. 

There are also differences in how housing works. It’s much more fragmented than employment or election law. It involves individual homeowners and small landlords. It can be harder to find the central nodes where litigation can drive systemic change.

3. You argue that in spite of its problems, the Fair Housing Act actually has a radical core. In what way?

If you look at either the text of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the case law, it’s really quite different from the Civil Rights Act, to which it is normally compared. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act talks about discrimination against an employee or an applicant—that is, individuals in relation to particular jobs. It’s about fairly matching people with jobs. The FHA looks beyond discrimination in individual transactions.

The FHA says we need to think about the structure of the market itself—the structure of opportunity. It’s not enough that people have fair access to whatever housing opportunities already exist, in the form they already exist. Those opportunities must be fairly created in the first place.

That means things like prohibiting redlining, so there’s access to lending, and sometimes requiring that a zoning code allows for multifamily housing. It’s ensuring that there are opportunities, that there are available homes to move into.

4. That addresses the seller’s side. What about the buyer? 

There’s a line of cases that says that even though it’s not specifically mentioned in the act, discrimination in homeowner’s insurance is covered. The logic is that you can’t buy a house without a mortgage, and you can’t get a mortgage without insurance.

What these cases show is that the act intervenes on both sides of the market. It’s making sure there are housing opportunities but also that the buyer has nondiscriminatory access to certain prerequisites to securing housing. This isn’t unlimited—it does not say that you get to have the income to buy the home—but it sometimes ensures that households can obtain the necessary qualifications for more and better housing.

5. Why hasn’t this radical logic been more widely recognized?

It’s not that courts are consistently misapplying the act. This article is a description of the law as it has existed, not as it should be. Courts do apply the text differently than they do for Title VII cases; but too often, they don’t recognize those differences. Part of the motivation for writing this paper was to make sure that that didn’t create confusion or allow the weakening of important precedent. 

Things like redlining and discriminatory zoning—those are core to the Fair Housing Act, not periphery. This article is not calling for a reworking of fair housing law. It’s calling for a recognition of the strength that’s already in fair housing law.