The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that remedies under the federal Fair Housing Act can be sought not only for intentional racial discrimination but also for disparate impact.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and others are might cite this decision in support of their contention that disparate impact analysis should also be permitted under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), lending support to the CFPB’s position that dealer discretion in setting interest rates on vehicle installment sales contracts causes impermissible disparate impact on minority purchasers as shown by statistical analysis.  However, such a comparison would appear to be an apples-and-oranges mix up: the language of the Fair Housing Act is much more accommodating of disparate impact analysis than is that of the ECOA.