America is profoundly segregated along racial lines. We attend separate schools, live in separate neighborhoods, attend different churches, and shop at different stores. This rigid racial segregation results in social, economic, and resource inequality, with White communities of opportunity on the one hand, and many communities of color without access to quality schools, jobs, transportation, or health care on the other. Many people view this as an unfortunate fact of life, or as a relic of legal systems long-since overturned, and beyond the reach of current legal process. But this is not true. On the contrary, the law continues to play a profound role in creating and legitimizing patterns of racial segregation all across America. Crime-free housing ordinances are one of the most salient examples of the role law plays in producing and sustaining racial segregation today. They are, in this respect, a critical mechanism for effectuating the new housing segregation. Crime-free housing ordinances are local laws that either encourage or require private landlords to evict or exclude tenants who have had varying levels of contact with the criminal legal system. Though formally race neutral, these laws facilitate racial segregation in a number of significant ways. This is the first law review article to explain precisely how they do so. The Article contends that crime-free housing ordinances enable racial segregation by importing the racial biases, racial logics, and racial disparities of the criminal legal system into private housing markets. While scholars have examined the important role local laws played in effectuating racial inequality, they have not paid attention to crime-free housing ordinances. In addition to foregrounding how crime-free housing ordinances reinforce and perpetuate racially segregated communities, this Article proposes an intervention: a “segregative effects” claim, an underutilized cause of action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, to challenge this segregative impact. While this intervention would not end the pervasive nature of housing segregation across the United States, it could eliminate at least one of the causes of this persistent problem: a body of law whose formal race neutrality has obscured its racially segregative effects.

中文翻译：

---

新的住房隔离：无犯罪住房条例的吉姆克劳效应

美国在种族上被严重隔离。我们上不同的学校，住在不同的社区，参加不同的教堂，并在不同的商店购物。这种严格的种族隔离导致社会、经济和资源不平等，一方面是白人社区的机会，另一方面是许多有色人种社区无法获得优质学校、工作、交通或医疗保健。许多人认为这是一个不幸的生活事实，或者是长期被推翻的法律制度的遗物，超出了当前法律程序的范围。但是这是错误的。相反，法律继续在美国各地创造种族隔离模式并使之合法化方面发挥着深远的作用。无犯罪住房条例是当今法律在产生和维持种族隔离方面发挥作用的最突出例子之一。在这方面，它们是实现新的住房隔离的关键机制。无犯罪住房条例是当地法律，鼓励或要求私人房东驱逐或排除与刑事法律系统有不同程度接触的租户。尽管正式种族中立，但这些法律在许多重要方面促进了种族隔离。这是第一篇准确解释他们如何做到这一点的法律评论文章。文章认为，无犯罪住房条例通过将刑事法律体系中的种族偏见、种族逻辑和种族差异引入私人住房市场来实现种族隔离。虽然学者们研究了地方法律在实现种族不平等方面发挥的重要作用，但他们并没有关注无犯罪住房条例。除了突出无犯罪住房条例如何加强和延续种族隔离社区外，本文还提出了一项干预措施：“隔离影响”主张，这是 1968 年《公平住房法》下未充分利用的诉讼理由，以挑战这种隔离影响。虽然这种干预不会结束美国各地普遍存在的住房隔离，但它至少可以消除这个长期存在的问题的一个原因：正式的种族中立掩盖了其种族隔离影响的法律体系。除了突出无犯罪住房条例如何加强和延续种族隔离社区外，本文还提出了一项干预措施：“隔离影响”主张，这是 1968 年《公平住房法》下未充分利用的诉因，以挑战这种隔离影响。虽然这种干预不会结束美国各地普遍存在的住房隔离，但它至少可以消除这个长期存在的问题的一个原因：正式的种族中立掩盖了其种族隔离影响的法律体系。除了突出无犯罪住房条例如何加强和延续种族隔离社区外，本文还提出了一项干预措施：“隔离影响”主张，这是 1968 年《公平住房法》下未充分利用的诉因，以挑战这种隔离影响。虽然这种干预不会结束美国各地普遍存在的住房隔离，但它至少可以消除这个长期存在的问题的一个原因：正式的种族中立掩盖了其种族隔离影响的法律体系。挑战这种隔离影响。虽然这种干预不会结束美国各地普遍存在的住房隔离，但它至少可以消除这个长期存在的问题的一个原因：正式的种族中立掩盖了其种族隔离影响的法律体系。挑战这种隔离影响。虽然这种干预不会结束美国各地普遍存在的住房隔离，但它至少可以消除这个长期存在的问题的一个原因：正式的种族中立掩盖了其种族隔离影响的法律体系。