Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.
115 S.Ct. 1776 (U.S. May 15, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50748
Description
Zoning Ordinance Restricting Number of Unrelated Individuals But Not Number of Family Members in Single-Family Dwelling Is Not Exempt from Fair Housing Act
Abstract
The Supreme Court has held that petitioner city’s zoning code
definition of “family” is not a maximum occupancy
restriction exempt from the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 3607(b)(1). Petitioner city had cited respondent, the
operator of a group home for recovering alcoholics and drug
abusers, with violation of the city’s zoning code. The code
provides that the occupants of single-family dwellings must compose
a “family,” defined as “persons [without regard
to number] related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group
of five or fewer [unrelated] persons.” The district court
held that the zoning code was exempt from the FHA as a reasonable
restriction on the maximum number of persons permitted to occupy a
building. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court found that,
although rules that cap the total number of occupants allowed in a
dwelling in order to prevent overcrowding clearly fall within
section 3607(b)(1)’s exemption from the FHA, 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 in a dwelling, do not. The Court found that the
city code provisions invoked against respondent are classic
examples of a use restriction and complementing family composition
rule, which do not cap the number of people who may live in a
dwelling but direct that dwellings be used to house families.
Dissenting, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia and Justice
Kennedy, argued that, in order to take advantage of the exemption
from the FHA, zoning laws need not impose restrictions establishing
an absolute maximum number of occupants but rather need only impose
a restriction “regarding” the maximum number of
occupants.
