The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Volume 8 no. 2

CITY OF EDMONDS v. OXFORD

On May 15, 1995, the Court ruled that a zoning ordinance provision regulating areas for single-family dwelling units that defined family as "persons [without regard to number] related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [u nrelated] persons" was not exempt from the Fair Housing Act's prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Background

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) Amendments of 1988 added persons with disabilities to the classes protected against discrimination. A provision of the Act allows for "any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum numb er of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." The FHA also requires that "reasonable accommodations be made in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [disabled persons] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The question before the Court was whether the City of Edmonds' family composition rule qualified as "a restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" as defined by the Fa ir Housing Act. The Court found that the ordinance did not fall within the exemption stating that it did not set a maximum number of occupants but rather sought to define a family unit so as to "foster the family character of a neighborhood."

In 1990, the Oxford Home was opened to provide residence for a group of 10-12 adults recovering from alcoholism and/or drug addiction. The Home was located in an area zoned for single family homes. Edmonds filed suit in federal court claiming that the l ocation of the Home violated the city's zoning ordinance. The Oxford Home countersued claiming that the city had refused to make reasonable accommodations as required by the Fair Housing Act. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a separate action in sup port of Oxford House.

The District Court ruled in favor of the City, stating that the city's restriction as to number of nonrelated persons who could occupy a dwelling in an area zoned as single-family was exempt under the FHA's provision allowing "reasonable restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the FHA's exemption was inapplicable, and remanded the case for further consideration of the claims bro ught by Oxford House and the U.S. The Ninth Circuit's ruling conflicted with an Eleventh Circuit decision in Elliott v. Athens, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.

The Opinions

Justice Ginsburg wrote the Court's 6-3 opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer. Justice Ginsburg discusses the difference between municipal land use restrictions and maximum occupancy restri ctions. She states that the former commonly designate areas as for single-family, multi-family, commercial or industrial structures so as to prevent "the pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." In such provisions, a definition of family mu st be included. In contrast, Justice Ginsburg argues, maximum occupancy restrictions set a maximum number of occupants per dwelling, usually in relation to the available floor space or number and type of rooms. Such limits, Justice Ginsburg says, are se t for health and safety reasons to prevent overcrowding and usually apply to all residents of all dwellings.

The opinion asserts that the Fair Housing Act exemption applies to maximum occupancy restrictions:

"In sum, rules that cap the total number of occupants in order to prevent overcrowding of a dwelling 'plainly and unmistakably'...fall within [the FHA's] absolute exemption from the FHA's governance; rules designed to preserve the family character of a neighborhood, fastening on the composition of households rather than on the total number of occupants living quarters can contain, do not....

"The parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold question: Edmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a 'family' is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA...It remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions against Oxford House violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination...For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is Affirmed."

Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy which asserts that the majority failed "to give effect to the plain language of the statute."

"To my mind, the rule that 'no house...shall have more than five occupants'...readily qualifies as a 'restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.' In plain fashion, it 'restricts' - to five- 'the maximum num ber of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.' To be sure, as the majority observes, the restriction imposed by petitioner's zoning code is not an absolute one, because it does not apply to related persons...But [the FHA exemption] does not set forth a narrow exemption only for 'absolute' or 'unqualified' restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants. Instead, it sweeps broadly to exempt any restrictions regarding such maximum number. It is difficult to imagine what broader t erms Congress could have used to signify the categories or kinds of relevant governmental restrictions that are exempt from the FHA.... "The sole relevant question is whether petitioner's zoning code imposes 'any...restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.' Because I believe it does, I respectfully dissent."