Justices Let Fair-Housing Suits Stand : Supreme Court: The cases center on newspaper ads in the Washington, D.C. area that used only whites as models.

The Supreme Court today refused to kill two fair-housing lawsuits that stem from newspaper real estate advertisements showing only white models posing as homeowners.

The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that forces developers of a Virginia condominium community to defend themselves in a jury trial against allegations they violated federal law.

The suits center on ads that appeared in the Washington Post over a 17-month period beginning in 1985 for Colonial Village, a condo community in Arlington, Va., just across the Potomac River from the District of Columbia.

The suits were filed by Girardeau Spann, a black resident of Washington who is a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, and two advocacy groups--the Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Assn. and the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington.

Named as defendants are Colonial Village Inc. and its parent firm, Mobil Land Development Corp., a subsidiary of the huge oil company.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by featuring only white models in ads that appeared in the Post. The suits said the ads were racially preferential and discriminatory, and they sought an injunction and monetary damages.

A federal trial judge in 1987 threw out the suits, ruling that they had been filed too late.

But the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here reinstated them last March 13, and sent the dispute back to U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene for trial.

In the appeals acted on today, the justices were urged to dismiss the suits for several reasons. The appeals said applying the Fair Housing Act to bar the use of six ads showing 10 human models would violate free-speech rights.

Lawyers for Colonial Village Inc. argued that the appeals court ruling “in effect sent the case back for a jury trial based on nothing more than the appearance . . . of a handful of ads in which pictures of black models happened not to be included.”

The appeal added: “With no evidence of discriminatory intent being required, Colonial’s facially neutral ads may now subject it to liability if a jury in the District of Columbia finds that they can be read as racially preferential or discriminatory.”

All the disputed ads contained an Equal Housing Opportunity logo reflecting the developer’s compliance with fair housing laws.

In another action today, the court refused to kill an affirmative action program in Florida aimed at awarding more public works contracts to businesses run by minorities and women.

The court, without comment, rejected an appeal by companies that said the Tampa-area program is unconstitutional because it condones reverse discrimination against white men.