Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1995

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.

514 U.S. 725 | 115 S. Ct. 1776 | 131 L. Ed. 2d 801 | 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3183 | 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3577 | 95 Daily Journal DAR 6197 | 63 U.S.L.W. 4402 | 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 10

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that the FHA’s maximum-occupancy exemption protects genuine anti-overcrowding limits, not single-family zoning rules that restrict who may live together.

Background

Oxford House operated a group home in Edmonds, Washington, for 10 to 12 adults recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction. The house was in an area zoned for single-family residences. Edmonds defined a permitted “family” as any number of persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or no more than five unrelated persons. Because Oxford House had more than five unrelated residents, the City issued criminal citations to the owner and a resident.

The parties stipulated that Oxford House’s residents were handicapped persons under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Oxford House requested a reasonable accommodation under the FHA, explaining that a group of 8 to 12 residents was necessary to make the home therapeutically and financially viable. The City refused to allow the home in the single-family zone, although it later authorized group homes in multifamily and commercial areas.

Edmonds brought a federal declaratory action asserting that its family-definition rule was exempt from the FHA. Oxford House counterclaimed, and the United States brought a separate FHA action alleging that the City had refused a reasonable accommodation. The District Court held that the rule was exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1) as a reasonable restriction on the maximum number of occupants. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the FHA claims. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict with the Eleventh Circuit.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Edmonds’ definition of “family,” which permits any number of related persons but only five unrelated persons to occupy a single-family dwelling, is exempt from the Fair Housing Act as a reasonable restriction regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling under 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1).

Holding

No. A family-composition rule designed to preserve the character of a single-family neighborhood is not a maximum-occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under § 3607(b)(1).

Reasoning

The FHA broadly prohibits housing discrimination against persons with handicaps, including a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules or practices when necessary to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Because the Act expresses a national policy favoring fair housing, the Court read its exemptions narrowly rather than expansively.

Congress distinguished land-use regulations from maximum-occupancy regulations. Land-use restrictions separate incompatible uses and preserve the residential character of neighborhoods; a single-family zoning scheme commonly requires a municipality to define who constitutes a family. Maximum-occupancy rules, by contrast, ordinarily limit the number of people who may live in a dwelling according to floor area, room size, or similar measures.

This distinction also appears in Moore v. East Cleveland. There, the Court treated a restrictive family definition as different from a separate ordinance that directly regulated overcrowding by tying permissible occupancy to habitable floor area. A family-definition rule concerns household relationships and neighborhood character, while a true occupancy limit addresses health and safety risks associated with overcrowding.

Section 3607(b)(1)’s language naturally covers total numerical ceilings on the occupants of a dwelling—rules that prevent a dwelling from being overcrowded. It does not naturally encompass rules that define the permissible composition of a household in a single-family zone, even when those rules place a number limit on one category of households.

Edmonds’ rule did not establish a maximum number of people who could live in a house. Any number of people related by genetics, adoption, or marriage could occupy a dwelling, while only groups of more than five unrelated persons were excluded. The rule therefore regulated family living rather than living space per occupant.

Edmonds itself had a separate, floor-area-based provision that increased required bedroom space as additional people occupied a room. That provision was the prototypical maximum-occupancy restriction contemplated by § 3607(b)(1). Treating the family-definition rule as exempt merely because it allowed up to five unrelated people would improperly turn a family-character rule into an occupancy limit.

Issue #2

Whether the Court decided that Edmonds’ enforcement of its zoning rule against Oxford House violated the FHA’s substantive prohibitions against disability discrimination or failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

Holding

No. The Court decided only the threshold exemption question and remanded for the lower courts to determine whether the City’s actions violated the FHA.

Reasoning

The Court held only that § 3607(b)(1) did not place Edmonds’ family-definition rule outside the FHA altogether. The rule was therefore subject to FHA scrutiny, including the statute’s reasonable-accommodation requirement.

Whether permitting Oxford House’s larger household in a single-family zone was a reasonable accommodation necessary to afford its residents an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing depended on issues the lower courts had not resolved. The Court accordingly affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s remand rather than deciding the merits of the discrimination claims itself.

Dissents

Justice Thomas

Reasoning

Justice Thomas read § 3607(b)(1) according to its ordinary language. In his view, Edmonds imposed a five-person limit on unrelated occupants in single-family dwellings, subject to an exception for traditionally related families. That was still a restriction “regarding” the maximum number of occupants, even though it did not impose one absolute cap applicable to every household.

The dissent faulted the majority for replacing the statute’s broad wording—exempting “any” reasonable restriction regarding maximum occupancy—with a narrower, judicially created category of rules. Nothing in the text required that an exempt rule be based on floor space, apply uniformly to all dwellings, or be aimed exclusively at health and safety concerns from overcrowding.

Justice Thomas also rejected the majority’s reliance on the FHA’s general fair-housing policy to construe the exemption narrowly. Congress itself chose the scope of the exemption, and a court should not subordinate its broad language to the statute’s overall purpose. Moreover, land-use regulation is traditionally a state and local function, so the Court should not lightly read federal law to intrude on local zoning authority.

Because the Edmonds rule qualified as a restriction regarding maximum occupancy, the dissent would have reversed the Ninth Circuit. It would have remanded only for consideration of the separate statutory requirement that the restriction be reasonable.