Hills v. Gautreaux
1976 United States Supreme Court case
Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
In this case, a number of Chicago families living in housing projects were awarded Section 8 vouchers allowing them to move to the suburbs in compensation for the housing project's substandard conditions. Carla Anderson Hills was the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the eponymous lead respondent was Dorothy Gautreaux (1927–1968). The court ruled that the department had violated the Fifth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The significance of the case lies in the sociological conclusions that can be drawn from the natural experiment that ensued. A number of families chose to move, while others stayed, and Northwestern University researchers studying the two populations concluded that low-income women who moved to the suburbs "clearly experienced improved employment and earnings, even though the program provided no job training or placement services." The disparity arguably proves that concentrated poverty is self-perpetuating and simply alleviating this concentration offers an avenue for improving the quality of life of those affected by urban poverty.
2024 settlement extension
In 2019, a settlement was reached in Hills v. Gautreaux requiring the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) to continue developing scattered site housing, improve the housing voucher mobility program, and complete mixed-income housing projects. The settlement also included creating early childhood development programs at four public housing sites.
“Hills v. Gautreaux” enters the record as 1976 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Hills, Gautreaux and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Hills v. Gautreaux” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Hills, Gautreaux and United provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5763514. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1976, 1927, 1968 and 1964.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Hills v. Gautreaux”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Hills v. Gautreaux primary sources, Hills v. Gautreaux archive and Hills research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Hills v. Gautreaux”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Hills v. Gautreaux” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.