text:
Civil Rights Act of 1968

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is a landmark law in the United States signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots.

Titles II through VII comprise the Indian Civil Rights Act, which applies to the Native American tribes of the United States and makes many but not all of the guarantees of the U.S. Bill of Rights applicable within the tribes. (That Act appears today in Title 25, sections 1301 to 1303 of the United States Code).

Titles VIII and IX are commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (This is different legislation than the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which expanded housing funding programs.) While the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibited discrimination in housing, there were no federal enforcement provisions. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and since 1974, sex. Since 1988, the act protects people with disabilities and families with children. Pregnant women are also protected from illegal discrimination because they have been given familial status with their unborn child being the other family member. Victims of discrimination may use both the 1968 act and the 1866 act's section 1983 to seek redress. The 1968 act provides for federal solutions while the 1866 act provides for private solutions (i.e., civil suits). The act also made it a federal crime to "by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone... by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin, handicap or familial status."

Title X, commonly known as the Anti-Riot Act, makes it a felony to "travel in interstate commerce...with the intent to incite, promote, encourage, participate in and carry on a riot." That provision has been criticized for "equating organized political protest with organized violence."

Background
The first shift towards equality for African Americans occurred when President Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which declared that "all persons held as slaves... shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free...". The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared all people born in the United States are legally citizens. That means they could rent, hold, sell and buy property. It was meant to help former slaves, and those who refused to grant the new rights to ex-slaves were guilty and punishable under law. The penalty was a fine of $1000 or a maximum of one year in jail. The 1866 act provided no means to enforce the provisions.

The Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968), beginning after the Brown v. Board of Education case, paved the way for the passage of a few civil rights bills. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 enacted federal legislation of local registration polls and if anyone obstructed someone's right to vote, there were severe penalties. It also extended the Civil Rights Commission, so it could oversee registration and voting practices. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation, and employment discrimination were also prohibited. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibited racial discrimination in voting. The Act was later expanded to help protect the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country (mainly the South).

Another impetus for the law's passage came from the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr., James Bevel, and Al Raby. Also influential was the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act in California, which had been backed by the NAACP and CORE. and the 1967 Milwaukee fair housing campaigns led by James Groppi and the NAACP Youth Council. Senator Walter Mondale advocated for the bill in Congress, but noted that over successive years, a federal fair housing bill was the most filibustered legislation in US history. It was opposed by most Northern and Southern senators, as well as the National Association of Real Estate Boards. A proposed "Civil Rights Act of 1966" collapsed completely because of its fair housing provision. Mondale commented:

"A lot of [previous] civil rights [legislation] was about making the South behave and taking the teeth from George Wallace…. This came right to the neighborhoods across the country. This was civil rights getting personal."

Two developments revived the bill. The Kerner Commission report on the 1967 race riots strongly recommended "a comprehensive and enforceable federal open housing law," and was cited regularly by Congress members arguing for the legislation. The final breakthrough came in the aftermath of the April 4, 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil unrest across the country following King's death. On April 5, Johnson wrote a letter to the United States House of Representatives urging passage of the Fair Housing Act. The Rules Committee, "jolted by the repeated civil disturbances virtually outside its door," finally ended its hearings on April 8. With newly urgent attention from legislative director Joseph Califano and Democratic Speaker of the House John McCormack, the bill (which was previously stalled) passed the House by a wide margin on April 10.

Legislative history
In 1966, President Johnson proposed a new civil rights bill, but it was not passed through by the Senate. On February 17, 1967, the bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Manny Celler and in the Senate by Senator Philip A. Hart.

The House Judiciary Committee cleared HR 2516 (civil rights bill) and HR 10805 (extended life of Civil Rights Commission for another five years). House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 5 June 22 approved a package combining HR 2516 and HR 421 (Administration bill) in order to strengthen protections for civil rights workers.

The initial vote in the House of Representatives was 327–93 (161–25 in the House Republican Conference and 166–67 in the House Democratic Caucus) with 12 members voting present or abstaining, while in the Senate the final vote with amendments was 71–20 (29–3 in the Senate Republican Conference and 42–17 in the Senate Democratic Caucus) with 5 members voting present or abstaining. The House agreed to the Senate amendments by a vote of 250–172 (100–84 in the House Republican Conference and 150–88 in the House Democratic Caucus) with 10 members voting present or abstaining.

Bill H.R. 2516 was passed by the 90th United States Congress and signed by the 36th President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1968.

Title I: Hate crimes
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 also enacted (b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

Persons violating this law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.

Though sexual orientation and gender identity were also excluded from this law, they are included in a more recent Federal hate-crime law, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Title II–VII: Indian Civil Rights Act
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 granted Native Americans full access to the United States Bill of Rights. The first minor section focuses on re-establishing amendments now granted to Native Americans. The main portion of the section focuses on Native Americans in the United States legal system. The last section of this act points out other materials related to more constitutional rights of Native Americans, such as the "Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties" doctrine.

Housing discrimination
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Since 1968 its protections have been expanded significantly by amendment. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is charged with administering and enforcing this law.

Types of banned discrimination
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of housing discrimination:

 * Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of their race, color, religion or national origin. Discrimination on the basis of sex was added in 1974, and people with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes in 1988.
 * Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
 * Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. This provision was also amended to include sex, disability, and having children.
 * Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
 * Neglecting maintenance and repairs of the units rented by people based on race, religion, sex, or any other discriminatory demographic.
 * Restricting access to services and amenities on the basis of the renter's race, gender, religion, or nationality.
 * In 2012, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a regulation prohibiting LGBT discrimination in federally assisted housing programs. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that discrimination on the basis of "sex" includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.   It was not until February 2021 that Housing and Urban Development issued a rule change under President Joe Biden to implement this decision. In addition, many states, cities and towns have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Types of allowed discrimination
Only certain kinds of discrimination are covered by fair housing laws. Landlords are not required by law to rent to any tenant who applies for a property. Landlords can select tenants based on objective business criteria, such as the applicant's ability to pay the rent and take care of the property. Landlords can lawfully discriminate against tenants with bad credit histories or low incomes, and (except in some areas) do not have to rent to tenants who will be receiving Section 8 vouchers. Landlords must be consistent in the screening, treat tenants who are inside and outside the protected classes in the same manner, and should document any legitimate business reason for not renting to a prospective tenant.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has stated that buyers and renters may discriminate and may request real estate agents representing them to limit home searches to parameters that are discriminatory. The primary purpose of the Fair Housing Act is to protect the buyer's (and renter's) right to seek a dwelling anywhere they choose. It protects the buyer's right to discriminate by prohibiting certain discriminatory acts by sellers, landlords, and real estate agents.

People with disabilities
The Fair Housing Act defines a person with a disability in the same manner as the Americans with Disabilities Act – “a person with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.”

The Fair Housing Act provides several specific protections for buyers and tenants with disabilities. Landlords and sellers cannot make a dwelling unit unavailable or deny a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of their disability or the disability of any person who intends to reside in the dwelling or because of the disability of anyone with whom they are associated. Landlords cannot deny a person with a disability all of the privileges provided in connection with the dwelling, because of the person's disability.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) provides some specific protections for people with disabilities that facilitate independence and community living. First, the FHA allows tenants to make reasonable modifications to the existing premises. It makes it illegal for landlords to not allow people with disabilities to make reasonable modifications to the premises, at their own expense, if they need the modification to have full enjoyment of the premises. For example, an individual with a disability may require grab bars installed in order to have access to take a shower. The landlord must allow the tenant to install the grab bars to allow access to take a shower. However, technically, the landlord may require the tenant remove the grab bars at the end of the tenancy, at the tenant's own expense. However, the regulations specify that in rental housing, a landlord may not condition widening a bathroom doorway to provide wheelchair access, to its return to its former narrow state upon the end of the tenancy, since it will not interfere with the next tenants use and enjoyment of the premises.

The second protection offered by the FHA includes the requirement that no one can refuse to make reasonable accommodations to “rules, policies, practices, or services, when the accommodation is necessary to afford” a person with a disability “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit,” including the amenities of the dwelling, which may involve common areas. For example, a building with a “No Pets” policy would violate the FHA if it did not allow a blind person to have their seeing eye dog live with them as a reasonable accommodation to the policy. Similarly, a wheelchair user could request an assigned, accessible parking space as a reasonable accommodation in a “first come first serve” parking lot attached to an apartment complex.

Title X: Anti-Riot Act
The Act included the "Anti-Riot Act," enacted at (with its key terms, "riot" and "incite a riot," defined in ), which makes it a federal crime to use interstate or foreign commerce routes or facilities (such as by crossing state lines or through mail, use of the Internet, or phone calls) to incite a riot, organize, promote or participate in a riot or to extend activities of a riot, or to aid and abet any person performing such activities. The provision has been informally referred to as the "H. Rap Brown Law" since the arrest and trial of H. Rap Brown in 1967 for carrying a gun across state lines. Rulings by the 4th Circuit in 2020 and 9th Circuit in 2021 struck down in those circuits the portions of the law which prohibit "urging" a riot on the grounds of freedom of speech, leaving in place bans on inciting and participation in riots.

Titles
Note: Most of the information provided in this Section was paraphrased from the Titles. If you are interested at looking through the original titles, feel free to look at the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Title I—interference with federally protected activities
Section 101 holds that Chapter 13, civil rights, title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting a new section (Section 245) called Federally protected activities. It establishes that this section isn't set as an intent on the part of Congress, or is constructed to limited the authority of Federal officers (or Federal grand jury) to investigate possible violations in this section. In this section of the bill sets the standard for preventing any kind of threat of force by someone who willfully injures, intimidates, interferes with or even attempts any of these actions upon a person of color (full discrimination set as race, color, religion, or national origin) when the minority in question is:

 * Voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official in any election
 * Participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility
 * Applying for or enjoying employment
 * Serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court
 * Participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
 * Enrolling in or attending any public school or public college
 * Traveling in or using airy facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air
 * Enjoying the. goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment

Any citizen who has been ordered to discourage these citizens from aiding/encouraging other persons to participate without discrimination in any activities listed above will be:

 * Fined $1,000 or imprisoned for a year (or both)
 * Fined $10,000 or imprisoned for ten years (or both) if there was any sort of bodily injury
 * Imprisoned for any term of years or for life if death has occurred

There is a similar section that also involved prevention for intimidation in fair housing, in Title XII.

The rest of the sections in this title are based around amendments to this legislative Act. For example, besides Section 245, Section 2101 called Riots has also been added. In this section, it focuses on putting a penalty behind any related riot actions, where a person can be fined $10,000 or imprisoned for 5 years (or both). There is a definition section (Section 2102) for defining: riot and to incite a riot. Also, This section also holds an edit for the United States Code, where a chapter called Riots is inserted.

Title II—rights of Indians
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applies to the Indian tribes of the United States and makes many but not all of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable within the federally recognized tribes. The Act appears today in Title 25, sections 1301 to 1303 of the United States Code.

Events before passage
The US Supreme Court had made clear that tribal internal affairs concerning tribal members' individual rights were not covered by the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution. However, the tribes were ultimately subjected to the power of Congress and the Constitution. The court case Talton v. Mayes helped establish the principles. There were other court cases over the following years to continue the thoughts "that tribes were not arms of the federal government when punishing tribal members for criminal acts and that Indian tribes were exempt from many of the constitutional protections governing the actions of state and federal governments."

In the 1960s, Congress held a series of hearings on the subject of the authority of tribal governments. The hearings told about the abuses that many tribal members had endured from the "sometimes corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical tribal officials." In response, the Indian Civil Rights Act was enacted.

Provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act
No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall— According to the US Government Publishing Office, in "imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of $5,000, or both" in paragraph 7, "and" should probably be "or."
 * 1) make or enforce any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances;
 * 2) violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, nor issue warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized;
 * 3) subject any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy;
 * 4) compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;
 * 5) take any private property for a public use without just compensation;
 * 6) deny to any person in a criminal proceeding the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;
 * 7) require excessive bail, impose excessive fines, inflict cruel and unusual punishments, and in no event impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of $5,000, or both;
 * 8) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law;
 * 9) pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law; or
 * 10) deny to any person accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment the right, upon request, to a trial by jury of not less than six persons.

The act also requires tribal courts to afford due process and other civil liberties. Also, Native American courts try to provide a setting similar to that of a US courtroom, which is familiar to lawyers. That aided the attorneys and helped to divert non-Indian ridicule and established the view that tribal courts were legitimate courts. Tribal courts adopted rules of evidence, pleading, and other requirements similar to those in state and federal courts.

The ICRA incorporated many constitutional protections, but it modified others or did not include them at all: "The law did not impose the establishment clause, the guarantee of a republican form of government, the requirement of a separation of church and state, the right to a jury trial in civil cases, or the right of indigents to appointed counsel in criminal cases." The provisions were excluded because the government recognized the different political and cultural status of the tribes.

Even though the federal government respected their individuality in this respect, the establishment of the ICRA caused the tribal governments to "mirror" modern American courts and procedures.

The impact of ICRA was greatly limited by the Supreme Court by the Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez court case (1978). Martinez involved a request to stop denying tribal membership to those children born to female (not male) tribal members who married outside of the tribe. The mother who brought the case pleaded that the discrimination against her child was solely based on sex, which violated the ICRA. The courts decided that "tribal common-law sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the tribe." Martinez ultimately strengthened tribal self-determination by further proving that generally, the federal government played no enforcement role over the tribal governments.

Title III—model code governing courts of Indian offenses
The Secretary of Interior is supposed to recommend (to Congress) a model code to govern the administration of justice when it comes to Indian offenses on Indian reservations on July 1, 1968. The title also mentions some provisions for individuals being tried in the court of Indian offenses:

 * Any individual being tried shall have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as any other individual granted by the United States Constitution.
 * Any individual being tried will be advised and made aware of these rights and any other tribal constitution applicable.
 * Establish proper qualifications for the office of judge
 * Provide training for judges through educational classes

In order to carry out these provisions, the Secretary of Interior was also encouraged to consult with Indians, Indian tribes, and agencies of the U.S.

Title IV—jurisdiction over criminal and civil actions
Section 401 covers assumptions by states. It's the main foundation for Indian rights. It states that Indians shall not be alienated or deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation.

Section 402 covers assumptions by states of civil jurisdiction. The main point to focus on here is to note how the States don't have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or Indian parties. However, this section also brings up more Indian rights. It states that nothing shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community.

Section 403 covers retrocession of jurisdiction by states. The United States is authorized to accept a retrocession by any state of all or any measure of the criminal or civil jurisdiction (or both).

Section 404 covers consent to amend state laws. The United States is given to the people of any state to amend their state constitution or existing statutes, in order to remove any legal impediment to the assumption of civil or criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this title.

Section 405 covers actions not to abate. It states that no action pending immediately prior to any cession of jurisdiction shall abate by reason of that section. For the action or proceeding, such cession shall take place on the day after the date of the final determination of the action or proceeding. Also, it states that no cession made by the United States shall deprive any court to hear, determine, render judgment, or impose sentence in any criminal action instituted against any person for any offense committed.

Section 406 covers special elections. State jurisdiction is created by a majority vote of adult Indians in a special election. For this special election, the Secretary of the Interior calls the rules and regulations for the election, when the tribal council or other governing body requests to do so.

Title V—offenses within Indian country
Amends section 1153 of title 18 of the United States Code. With the new addition, it reads: "weapon assault resulting in serious bodily injury".

Title VI—employment of legal counsel
An Indian, Indian tribe, Indian council, or any group of Indians have a right for the employment of legal counsel, and includes the choice of counsel and the fixing of fees. If any application made requiring the approval of the Secretary of Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is not granted or denied within 90 days, then the approval shall be deemed to have been granted.

Title VII—materials relating to constitutional rights of Indians
In this title, there are two materials mentioned to help strengthen the constitutional rights of Native Americans: "Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties" and "Federal Indian Law". This Act only mentions for these documents to be revised and printed on September 1, 1967. However, it is crucial to truly understand what these materials contain.

The "Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties" material is full of treaties between Natives and the U.S. government. For this bill, however, the protection was originally created by the Treaty of Peace between the Navajo Indian Tribe and the United States. On June 1, 1868, with the signing by 29 Navajo headmen and 10 officers of the United States Army, the sovereignty of the Navajo Tribe was officially recognized. (It was later ratified by the Senate on July 23 and proclaimed by President Andrew Johnson on August 12). With this treaty, it brought the end to a four-year period of the hardships and exile brought upon the Navajo Tribe.

On May 17, 1968, Congress, with a joint resolution, requested the President for a centennial signing of the treaty. Therefore, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the centennial of the signing of the 1868 Treaty of Peace between the Navajo Indian Tribe and the United States.

The "Federal Indian Law" material, on the other hand, is much broader than the other source. Basically, "Federal Indian Law" contains treaties, statutes, executive orders, administrative decisions and court cases that defines the political and legal status of federally recognized Native Americans. Within this material, the relationship of tribes and the U.S. government is defined as well as what the role of tribes are in states and the federal government. The three fundamental legal principles* in "Federal Indian Law" are:

 * 1) American Indian and Alaska Native tribes that are recognized by the federal government are independent sovereign governments, separate from the states and from the federal government.
 * 2) Unless Congress provides otherwise, the sovereignty of federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes generally extends over their federally recognized geographic territory (e.g., reservations, allotments, trust and restricted Indian lands, and other Indian country), including over the activities and conduct of tribal members and non-tribal members within that territory
 * 3) The sovereignty of federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes is inherent and exists unless and until Congress takes it away.

* Note: The legal principles are sourced from the "Federal Indian Law" material, resourced from the "Federal Indian Law and Policy Affecting American Indian and Alaska Native Education" document

Title VIII—fair housing
The 1968 Fair Housing Act is a federal act in the United States intended to protect the buyer or renter of a dwelling from seller or landlord discrimination. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's inclusion in a protected class. The goal is a unitary housing market in which a person's background (as opposed to financial resources) does not arbitrarily restrict access. Calls for open housing were issued early in the twentieth century, but it was not until after World War II that concerted efforts to achieve it were undertaken.

The legislation was the culmination of a civil rights campaign against housing discrimination in the United States, including the 1966 Chicago open housing movement, and was approved by President Lyndon B. Johnson one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Fair Housing Act was enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, with penalties for violation at 42 U.S.C. 3631. It is enforced by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Summary
The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlaws:

 * Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
 * Discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.
 * Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, disability or national origin.
 * Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.

A guide to legal and illegal acts in selling one's home under the Act is available here:

When the Fair Housing Act was first enacted, it prohibited discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. Sex was added as a protected characteristic in 1974. In 1988, disability and familial status (the presence or anticipated presence of children under 18 in a household) were added (further codified in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). In certain circumstances, the law allows limited exceptions for discrimination based on sex, religion, or familial status.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. As of May 2018, there is an additional pending effort to amend the Fair Housing Act to make this explicit (HR 1447). In a meeting on May 16, 2018 with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was campaigning for his 16th term, said he believed that homeowners should be allowed to refuse to sell their home to gay and lesbian homebuyers. The NAR disagreed and withdrew its endorsement of the Congressman over the matter.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is the federal executive department with the statutory authority to administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has delegated fair housing enforcement and compliance activities to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and HUD's Office of General Counsel. FHEO is one of the United States' largest federal civil rights agencies. It has a staff of more than 600 people located in 54 offices around the United States. As of August 2017, the head of FHEO is Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Anna Maria Farias, whose appointment was confirmed on August 3, 2017.

Individuals who believe they have experienced housing discrimination can file a complaint with FHEO at no charge. FHEO funds and has working agreements with many state and local governmental agencies where "substantially equivalent" fair housing laws are in place. Under such agreements, FHEO refers complaints to the state or locality where the alleged incident occurred, and those agencies investigate and process the case instead of FHEO. That is known as FHEO's Fair Housing Assistance Program (or "FHAP").

There is also a network of private, non-profit fair housing advocacy organizations throughout the country. Some are funded by FHEO's Fair Housing Initiatives Program (or "FHIP"), and some operate with private donations or grants from other sources.

Victims of housing discrimination need not go through HUD or any other governmental agency to pursue their rights, however. The Fair Housing Act confers jurisdiction to hear cases on federal district courts. The United States Department of Justice also has jurisdiction to file cases on behalf of the United States where there is a pattern and practice of discrimination or where HUD has found discrimination in a case and either party elects to go to federal court instead of continuing in the HUD administrative process.

The Fair Housing Act applies to landlords renting or leasing space in their primary residence only if the residence contains living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by three or more other families living independently of each other, such as an owner-occupied rooming house. Restrictions on discriminatory advertising do apply to all landlords without reservation.

Enforcement
The Fair Housing Act has been strengthened since its adoption in 1968, but enforcement continues to be a concern among housing advocates. According to a 2010 evaluation of Analysis of Impediments (AI) reports done by the Government Accountability Office, enforcement is particularly inconsistent across local jurisdictions.

Title IX—prevention of intimidation in fair housing cases
As the title states, this section of the bill sets the standard for preventing any kind of threat of force by someone who willfully injures, intimidates, interferes with or even attempts any of these actions upon a person of color (full discrimination set as race, color, religion, or national origin) when the minority in question is:

 * Selling, purchasing, renting, financing, occupying, contracting, or negotiating for the sale
 * Applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings
 * Participating or encouraging others to participate in any of the activities, services, organizations or facilities
 * Participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly

Any citizen who has been ordered to discourage these citizens from aiding/encouraging other persons to participate without discrimination in any activities listed above will be:

 * Fined $1,000 or imprisoned for a year (or both)
 * Fined $10,000 or imprisoned for ten years (or both) if there was any sort of bodily injury
 * Imprisoned for any term of years or for life if death has occurred

Title X—civil obedience
Section 231 covers civil disorders. The civil disorders mentioned in this section are:

 * Teaching or demonstrating to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to people
 * Transporting or manufacturing for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing that it will be used in furtherance of a civil disorder

Whoever commits or attempts to commit any of these acts will be fined no more than $10,000 or imprisoned no more than 5 years, or both.

Section 232 covers definitions in this title. The definitions that are defined are: civil disorder, commerce, federally protested function, firearm, explosive or incendiary device, and law enforcement officer.

Section 233 covers preemption. None of the provisions contained in the title are intended on the part of Congress to occupy the state or local laws with the same subject matter nor are constructed to invalidate any provision of state law unless it is inconsistent. This section also holds an edit for the United States Code, where a chapter called Civil Disorders is inserted.

Amendments
In 1988, Congress voted to weaken the ability of plaintiffs to prosecute cases of housing discrimination. But the Fair Housing Act was also amended in 1988 to allow plaintiffs' attorneys to recover attorney's fees. Additionally, the 1988 amendment added people with disabilities and families with children to the classes covered by the Act.

Case law
In the early 1990s, in Trouillon v. City of Hawthorne, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund successfully challenged an urban renewal plan on the basis of race discrimination by bringing suit under the Fair Housing Act. Previous litigation under the Act had largely been limited to discrimination in buying or renting housing.

Although he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Davis nevertheless disputed the allegations of discrimination. He said he based his ruling in part on the city's failure to prove that the area had a higher crime rate and lower property values than other parts of the city. The city "did not act in bad faith or fraudulently," Davis wrote. It "did not discriminate against any minority or low or moderate income person and did not violate any person's Due Process, Equal Protection or other Civil Rights."

The Anti-Riot Act of Title I had been rarely used; it notably had been used to prosecute the Chicago Seven, but had not faced strict legal scrutiny. In the late 2010s, with growing concerns over activities of the far right, white nationalists, and white supremacists, the Anti-Riot Act had been used to prosecute organizers of various rallies that had turned violent, such as the Unite the Right rally in 2017. However, in June 2019, a federal district court in California, overseeing the case of members of the Rise Above Movement related to both the Unite the Right rally and other protests in California, ruled that the Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutional in that it was "overbroad in violation of the First Amendment."

New York State Human Rights Law

 * Extends the protection to marital status and age, aimed to prevent non-racial discrimination.

Section 236 and 237 of the New York State Property Law

 * Further extends the protection to include dwellings with children and mobile home parks. That is meant to protect renters and sellers from discriminating based on number of children in a family. Currently the Fair Housing Act protects against discrimination of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. The law applies to all types of housing, rental homes, apartments, condos and houses. The only exception to the act is if an owner of a small rental building lives in the same building he lets. Since he owns the building and also resides there, he can decide who lives there.

Violations of the Fair Housing Act
There are an estimated 2 million cases of housing discrimination each year according to HUD. The National Fair Housing Alliance, the largest fair housing non-profit in the country, estimates that number to be closer to 4 million per year, excluding instances of discrimination due to disability or familial status. Housing projects have also come under fire by researchers and NGOs alike. Housing advocates Elizabeth Julian and Michael Daniel state:

"in addition to the inequality in the actual housing provided to low-income African-American families under the federal programs, the neighborhoods in which they receive assistance are usually subject to various adverse conditions not found in the neighborhoods surrounding the housing units in which whites receive the same assistance. The conditions include inferior city-provided facilities and services, little or no new or newer residential housing, large numbers of seriously substandard structures, noxious environmental conditions, substandard or completely absent neighborhood service facilities, high crime rates, inadequate access to job centers, and little or no investment of new capital in the area by public and private entities."

title: Civil Rights Act of 1968


text:
Sir William Bowman, 1st Baronet

Sir William Bowman, 1st Baronet (20 July 1816 – 29 March 1892) was an English surgeon, histologist and anatomist. He is best known for his research using microscopes to study various human organs, though during his lifetime he pursued a successful career as an ophthalmologist.

Life
Born in Nantwich, Cheshire, third son of a banker and amateur botanist/geologist, Bowman attended Hazelwood School near Birmingham from 1826. A childhood accident involving gunpowder is supposed to have interested him in medicine, and he was apprenticed to surgeon Joseph Hodgson at Birmingham General Hospital in 1832. He left Birmingham in 1837 to further his training as a surgeon and attended King's College London, where he served as a prosector under Robert Bentley Todd, a Professor of physiology.

His earliest notable work was on the structure of striated muscle, for which he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1841. At the young age of 25, he identified what then became known as the Bowman's capsule, a key component of the nephron. He presented his findings in 1842 in his paper "On the Structure and Use of the Malpighian Bodies of the Kidney" to the Royal Society and was awarded the Royal Medal. His collaboration with Todd led to the publication of the five-volume "Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man" (1843–1856) and "Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology" (1852), which detailed their research on microscopy and histology, relating minute anatomical observations to physiological functions. Their extensive use of the microscopes revolutionized the study of anatomy and physiology. Apart from the Bowman's capsule, other anatomical structures named after him include:
 * Bowman's glands – in the olfactory mucosa
 * Bowman's layer – the anterior limiting layer in the cornea

After completing his surgical training in 1844, Bowman practised as an ophthalmologist at the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital (later known as Moorfields Eye Hospital). He was an early user of the ophthalmoscope invented by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1851. Between 1848 and 1855, he also taught at King's College. In 1880, he founded the 'Ophthalmological Society', which later became the Royal College of Ophthalmologists.

In 1870 he commissioned Arts and Crafts architect Philip Webb to rebuild Joldwynds, Bowman's house in Holmbury St Mary, Surrey. It was completed in 1874.

In 1884, Queen Victoria created him as a baronet. He died at Joldwynds on 29 March 1892, and is buried in the neighbouring churchyard of Holmbury St. Mary. A memorial to him lies within St James's Church, Piccadilly.

Family
On 28 December 1842, he married Harriet, fifth daughter of Thomas Paget of Leicester, by whom he had seven children. She died at Joldwynds on 25 October 1900. He was succeeded in the title by his eldest son, Sir Paget Bowman.

Publications by Sir William Bowman

 * , full download available at Google Book Search.
 * , full download available at Google Book Search.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sir William Bowman, 1st Baronet


text:
Talk:Svan language

Untitled
This got protected at the vandal's version. When it's unprotected, please revert as soon as possible. RickK 02:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Hmm, let's see, rules are if there's a consensus on the talk page, we can revert it without unprotecting it, right? I'll wait until tomorrow and see if there are any objections. UninvitedCompany 02:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please revert the page to the other version. This one tries to make it appear that Svan is just a dialect of Georgian (false - the languages seem to be as different as Greek and Latin, if not more), deletes half of the dialect list and important external links, and a few more things. Thanks... Jorge Stolfi 05:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The Svans are not Georgians
What is this: "Svan language ....spoken in .... by Georgians of Svan origin". What is this? The term "Georgians of Svan origin" used by Georgian politicians. Svans use a different language from Georgians. The term "Georgians of Svan origin" is not neutral and not scientific! Let us again: This wikipedia is not Georgia's Wikipedia! --Kmoksy (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Are you not tired of this? I have a million Svan relatives and this is the first time I hear that they are not Georgians. They speak a different language, just like Mingrelians, because their language is millenia old and it PREDATES the concept of what you know as "Georgian." You do not even have the basic understanding of the Georgian nation formation and I really suggest that you do some credible research before posting this nonsense in every corner. When Georgia started forming in the mid of the first millennium AD after Christianization, it was a GROUP of related peoples getting together, hence the certain regional differences in all parts of the country, with Svans and Mingrelians being the extreme example.

 * Good look at history of France, a million people in the south speak Occitan language, are they not French? Having a different national language than one that's indigenous is more common than you think and that is because some languages predate the national identities. If Turks like you can claim to be a nation after colonizing the Anatolian peninsula, I am not sure why an ancient country like Georgia cannot claim to be a nation after so many years.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us again: This wikipedia is not Georgia's Wikipedia! --Kmoksy (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You keep repeating that but that does not counter my argument. I just wrote two paragraph with concrete examples and that is all you have to say?-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This is another anti-Georgian hysteria, first they targeted Mingrelian article and now Svans are not Georgians :) Listen there Kmoksy, I'm Svan and a real one, my ancestors are from Ushguli and Mestia, I speak Svan and most of my relatives are Svans and we are proud Georgians. Take your anti-Georgian rhetoric somewhere else. If there are no numerous scholarly references suggesting otherwise, I dont think its worth waisting time. Iberieli (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Iberieli, he will find you plenty of "scholarly" works written by scholar-prostitutes from Russia. What you mean is credible scholarly references, and that is something he does not have.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably just a confusion of what one takes the term "Georgian" to mean. If one uses it limited to people speaking specifically the Georgian language, this wouldn't include Svans. Yet "Georgian" can also (be taken to) mean 'people from Georgia', in which case Svans being proud Georgians is no problem at all. --JorisvS (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Iberieli, what about those Svans who don’t consider themselves to be ethnic Georgians? Apswaaa (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Francization of ethnic minorities in France Apswaaa (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You are wrong JorisV, being from Georgia and being an ethnic Georgian is not the same. Svans are ethnic Georgians just like Mingrelians but they use a different language because the language predates the ethnic group - Georgians - which started to come into existence only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. This is something you would understand 1. if you were familiar with the Georgia's nation formation. 2. at least read my post above. I am tired of repeating myself for ignorant people who randomly drop by and make uncalled for conclusions.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the case that the Georgian ethnicity includes Svans and that Svans see themselves both as Ethnic Georgians and ethnic Svans which isn't really problematic since ethnic identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not such thing as ethnic Svan, they are ethnic Georgians just as us Mingrelians. Being part of a different kingdom 2 thousand years ago does not make one of a different ethnicity. Almost all parts of Georgia at some points have been independent, separate kingdoms.If you go back to the time of Colchis, the residents of the Kingdom probably did consider themselves a different,although related group, of the East. Yet, ethnicities do become obsolete after millenia of intermarriage. The languages are just vestiges of past differences.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie  18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Proto-Kartvelian was spoken about 4000 years ago, on the order of Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Uralic (per Juha Janhunen and Jaakko Häkkinen) or Proto-Austro-Asiatic (per Paul Sidwell), to keep this into perspective. The Svan language is wildly different from the Georgian language, and their traditional cultures are very different, too, compare Svan people. Claiming that Svans are Georgians (ethnically, as opposed to the "citizens of Georgia" sense) is like saying that the Sami people are all Finns or the Bretons (and other Celtic nations) – let alone the Occitans – are French, just because they speak distantly related languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So isn't it just safe to say the Svans are a Kartvelian people (like e.g. Hungarians are a Uralic people), instead of calling them a 'subethnic group of Georgians'? --JorisvS (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or something arbitrarily more wordy and precise ("an ethnolinguistic group traditionally associated with a Kartvelian language", for example; well, "language" is a problematic term, too, but I can't think of a better phrasing that isn't ridiculously verbose). In principle, yes, but given that "Kartvelian" is likely understood as "Georgian" by speakers of Georgian, "South Caucasian" may be better, and possibly more immediately helpful to general readers trying to place the Svans geographically and linguistically. In any case, a link to Kartvelian languages is highly recommended. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that (to take your example) Hungarians does not even mention Uralic in the lede, only Hungarian. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue has been discussed many times. The reliable sources have established that the Svans are almost universally categorized as a Georgian subgroup. Why so many people here want me to reconsider my ethnic identity? :) --KoberTalk 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everybody agrees that the Svans are ethnic Georgians, especially not all Svans. Your personal opinion is not what we are discussing here. We're just trying to find a phrasing that is both NPOV and precise. Which would mean that we could skirt the issue and have no need for any of the sources in question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, ethnicity is a complicated thing. Croatians and Serbians are ethnically distinct but speak the same language (Serbo-Croatian) and there is a village in India where one group speaks one language and another one speaks an only very distantly related one but those groups consider themselves to be of the same ethnicity.
 * I don't see how "an ethnolinguistic group traditionally associated with a Kartvelian language" would be more precise than simply "a Kartvelian people". --JorisvS (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a serious suggestion, but I do think it is more precise, just unnecessarily so because the shorter phrasing, by current convention, conveys the same meaning. It is true that ethnic (self-)identification is a headache, but it is complicated enough without people confusing it with citizenship or mere ethno-linguistic relationship, as in demonstrable common origins of some sort.
 * Just out of curiosity, does Kober object to the title of our article about the Svans being Svan people? After all, he seems to disagree with the notion of the Svans as a people, i. e., an ethnic group, so the article should be at Svan Georgians. Does he also consider the Laz people in Turkey Georgians? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Florian, that was not my personal opinion, but what the reliable sources say and what the people whom I know much better than you think of themselves. Where are the sources supporting your claim that "not all Svans" self-identify as Georgians? Are you a spokesperson for the Svans? Neither am I but at least I am one of them. As for your questions regarding the article titles, I don't think that the "people=ethnic group" formula is very accurate. Ethnic identity is a set of many cultural and social traits, and the primary language is by no means the only determining factor. The Laz of Turkey are not Georgians, because they don't identify themselves as such and have been only very peripherally involved in the very complex, centuries-long interaction among the Kartvelian groups that has led to the ethnogenesis of the modern Georgian people. Only the minority of the Laz dwelling in Georgia have assumed the all-Georgian ethnic identity. Regarding your claims about differences in traditional cultures, they can be found in any other region of Georgia. You might be amazed, but traditional cultures in Georgia vary significantly from village to village even in the linguistically "properly Georgian" regions such as Imereti] and Kakheti. I don't think that anyone with the knowledge of the Kartvelian microworld would treat the Imeretians and Kakhetians as different ethnic groups.
 * In short, you should provide the reliable sources asserting that the Svans are not Georgians and/or "not all" of them consider themselves Georgians. Please make sure that these sources outnumber and outweigh those proving the opposite so as not to make the minority views and fringe theories rule in the article. Thanks, KoberTalk 04:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A people is an ethnic group, "ethnic group" is merely a more scientific-sounding term. It's hardly surprising that regional cultures vary, but the question is whether they differ on the same order. Do Imeretians and Kakhetians retain pre-Christian customs? Are Russians Lithuanians or Lithuanians Russians, only because they speak distantly related languages? Surely the Russians did at some point push that POV that Lithuanians are a "brother nation" if not more, for purely imperialistic reasons. This is ultimately a political issue. Svans who do not view themselves as ethnic Georgians are dangerous as they could start a secessionist movement, and that's something deeply feared in Georgia. Wikipedia better take a neutral issue on the issue of what the Svans are, neither referring the Georgian POV nor the secessionist POV, so a NPOV wording is preferrable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with you. A people can refer to any group with a clearly defined ethnic, subethnic, regional, or religious identity. I have to repeat myself and ask you to provide sources for your claim that there is any, non-negligible segment of the Svan population whose self-identity is not Georgian. Otherwise, the discussion can be a deadlock. Regarding your question on cultural variability, yes, both Imeretians and Kakhetians retain pre-Christian customs. And I don't quite understand what the Russian-Lithuanian example has to do with all of these. Croatians and Serbians speak essentially the same language, but they are different ethnic groups. The "language=ethnic group" formula is now endorsed only by the most conservative ethnolinguists and, to the best of my knowledge, is not currently considered to be a majority point of view. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you could provide reliable sources on any potential or feared, perceived or real secessionist movement among the Svans. Let's recall that Wikipeda is not a crystal ball. The "NPOV wording" you are referring to should be based on reliable sources and not on someone's original research and not-very-successful comparisons with other ethno-ideological controversies. --KoberTalk 18:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am Svan myself, and I better know what we are. We are Georgians. But we recognize ourselves as Svan mostly. Like when someone asks us, we like to respond as that we are Svan, so we consider ourselves as both Svan and Georgian. But most likely, Svans. Nikoloz Ratiani (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unesco Red Book
The Unesco Red Book of Endangered Languages is the most reliable source about levels of language endangerment there is. It is compiled and written by experts on language endangerment. You do not get to discredit it because you disagree with it. If you have a source of comparable reliability that contradicts it then that viewpoint can also be included - removing the Unesco red Book is not an option.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Version"?
The article says that Verbs are marked for aspect, evidentiality and "version". What in the world is "version", in quotes, even? Can some Svan-speaker provide examples, or better yet, a reference to a grammar or something? --Wtrmute (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only other mention of 'version' as a grammatical category I've heard of is in Ithkuil, but I don't know if this has anything to do with the 'version' in Svan. --JorisvS (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a section on version in the Georgian grammar page. It seems to be a rather subtle feature of the verb in Kartvelian languages. And here's a question I asked about version on linguistics.stackexchange.com: Do languages besides the Kartvelian family have a property of verbs called “version”? — Hippietrail (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Phonology
None of Svan dialects has phonemes /v/, /f/ and /ʔ/. See http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/armazi/armaziII/c_laut/kartlaut.htm#svan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.130.196 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Svan language


text:
User talk:Elekt

This is not the place for an item such as you have been placing at Winternet. If you continue to recreate this page you will be blocked from editing. - Hephaestos|§ 02:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elekt


text:
Rayok

A rayok (раёк, lit. "small paradise") was a Russian fairground peep show. Performed using a box with pictures viewed through magnifying lenses, these were accompanied by lewd rhymed jokes. The Fall of Adam and Eve was one of the most popular topics. The term rayok has also come to be applied to rhymed humorous talk shows, without peeping, featuring a kind of rhymed prose. The expression "to talk rayok", говорить райком, thus means to speak in a rhymed, humorous way, to patter. Rayok, in both its peep show and talk show forms, has been an occupation of wandering artists called "rayoshniks". When used as the title for a piece of music, rayok implies a scurrilous entertainment, as in:

 * Rayok, an extended song by Modest Mussorgsky also known as Peep-Show
 * Anti-formalist Rayok, a cantata by Dmitri Shostakovich also known as Little Paradise, The Gods and A Learner's Manual

title: Rayok


text:
River Rubicon (disambiguation)

The Rubicon is a small river in Northern Italy.

River Rubicon or Rubicon River may also refer to:
 * Rubicon (Belgium), a tributary of the river Amblève
 * Rubicon River (California), a tributary of the American River in California, United States
 * Rubicon River (New Zealand), in the South Island of New Zealand
 * Rubicon River (Tasmania), a river in Tasmania, Australia
 * Rubicon River (Victoria), a river in Victoria, Australia
 * Rubicon River (Wisconsin), a river in Wisconsin, United States

See also:
 * Rubicon (disambiguation)
 * Crossing the Rubicon (disambiguation)

title: River Rubicon (disambiguation)