Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n

No. 97-35220 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2000);165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52274

Description

Antidiscrimination Statute May Not Be Enforced Against Landlords Who Refuse to Rent to Unmarried Couples for Religious Reasons

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit held that an Alaska statute and parallel city ordinance prohibiting apartment owners from refusing to rent to unmarried couples infringed on Christian landlords’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The laws make it unlawful to "refuse to sell, lease, or rent . . . real property to a person because of . . . marital status." Plaintiff landlords, who believed that cohabitation between unmarried individuals constituted the sin of fornication and that facilitating cohabitation in any way was tantamount to facilitating sin, claimed that enforcement of the antidiscrimination laws against them violated their constitutional rights. The district court granted plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief, and defendant state and local officials appealed. The court of appeals held that plaintiffs had colorable claims that their Fifth Amendment and free speech rights had been infringed. Although the Alaska housing laws did not rise to the level of a permanent physical occupation sufficient to trigger a per se right to compensation, they authorized a "physical invasion" of the landlords’ property just the same. Also, the court found that not all speech that took place in the context of a commercial transaction was "commercial speech." The court also held that antidiscrimination laws substantially burdened plaintiffs’ religious rights because they de facto forced plaintiffs to forsake their livelihoods as apartment owners and lessors. The court found no compelling government interest in eradicating marital-status discrimination that would excuse what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. The court noted that the Supreme Court had never accorded marital status any heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and that no firm national policy against marital-status discrimination existed. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the Establishment Clause barred the court from granting plaintiffs an exemption from the statute under the Free Exercise Clause. The court allowed neither the Alaska statute nor the Anchorage ordinance to be enforced against landlords who for religious reasons refused to rent to unmarried couples.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2000-08-04 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: