* The TDHCA had the opportunity to rebut ICP's evidence and argument on the existence of a less discriminatory alternative and did not do so.
* Although concluding that the Fair Housing Act permits disparate-impact causes of action in some situations, the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned whether ICP had even alleged a cognizable [within the court's power to adjudicate] disparate-impact claim here, and the court strongly suggested that the TDHCA had a valid defense even if ICP had alleged a cognizable claim.
* ICP's prima facie case rests solely on statistical disparities and different policy preferences, and has not demonstrated a causal connection to any law or practice implemented by TDHCA. And the only "practice" ICP refers to is the "disproportionate approval" of applications in minority areas, which is simply another way of complaining about the statistics without describing the cause.
* Because ICP has not identified a specific practice that has been shown to cause the statistical disparities, TDHCA [is] left in the dark about what [it] must justify at the second step of the analysis.
But the federal audit found that the TDHCA violated several rules in its selection of a private contractor to distribute the money.
"TDHCA cannot ensure it received the best value for the state" and paid out more nearly $19 million in unsupported and ineligible costs, the audit notes.