Redlining

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an interpretive rule Friday to clarify changes made to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act that were mandated by President Trump's regulatory relief law.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s questions for the public to comment on the decades-old law could illuminate a path forward as regulators struggle to agree on an updated policy.

The Supreme Court upheld using “disparate impact” over three years ago. But with HUD weighing a policy change, banks and advocacy groups are still at odds over the court decision.

The Trump administration has argued that the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, issued in 2015, was too prescriptive.

The banking industry lost a key battle in the Supreme Court over the use of “disparate impact,” but legal observers see potential for the tide to turn if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Courts have validated the legal theory behind punishing lenders for unintentional discrimination, but the Trump administration has shown interest in revising the Obama-era policy.

The Community Reinvestment Act needs to be updated, but in doing so Congress should remember why the law was created in the first place, argues Rep. Gregory Meeks.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., the CBC's chair, requested with a meeting with the comptroller of the currency to "enlighten" him about discrimination in banking.

After a long battle with the Justice Department over redlining charges, KleinBank caved as legal costs soared.

Sixty-four consumer groups are speaking out against a Senate measure, expected to be voted on this week, that would overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2013 regulation on discriminatory pricing by auto lenders.

A bill passed by the House would raise the threshold that allows smaller banks and credit unions to avoid expanded Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requirements imposed by a 2015 rule.

Alternative data can be beneficial for individuals locked out of the financial system’s more conventional data types, but such data is open to manipulation or biased interpretation.

In a new book, Mehrsa Baradaran argues that the same forces of poverty that African-American banks were supposed to alleviate are now holding them back.

The credit card issuer paid $95 million to settle charges it offered inferior terms to customers in American territories; Mitsubishi UFJ wants to become a top 10 U.S. bank.

Efforts to repeal a Dodd-Frank mandate for lenders to report data on small-business applicants — including race and ethnicity — overlook the benefits of the provision to both communities of color and banks.

The promise of fintech is that it might offer underbanked consumers access to financial products. But some are worried that relying on algorithms to make credit decisions could open up problems of its own.

While the courts have affirmed cities’ right to file predatory lending suits, they are also now holding them to a much higher standard in proving that banks knowingly steered minority borrowers into high-cost home loans.

The city joins a growing list of municipalities that have filed similar lawsuits, just two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have standing to sue lenders under the Fair Housing Act.

Fintech companies can help consumers and small businesses obtain credit at lower costs, but it is critical to ensure that these innovative companies do not harm borrowers with predatory or discriminatory lending practices.

Biased housing finance practices perpetuate the wealth gap between whites and communities of color.