City of Edmonds v. Oxford House Inc.

Citation131 L.Ed.2d 801,115 S.Ct. 1776,514 U.S. 725
Decision Date15 May 1995
Docket Number9423
PartiesCITY OF EDMONDS, Petitioner v. OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus *

Respondent Oxford House operates a group home in Edmonds, Washington, for 10 to 12 adults recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residences. Petitioner City of Edmonds issued citations to the owner and a resident of the house, charging violation of the City's zoning code. The code provides that the occupants of single-family dwelling units must compose a "family," and defines family as "persons [without regard to number] related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [unrelated] persons." Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) § 21.30.010. Oxford House asserted reliance on the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which prohibits discrimination in housing against, inter alios, persons with handicaps. Discrimination covered by the FHA includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Edmonds subsequently sued Oxford House in federal court, seeking a declaration that the FHA does not constrain the City's zoning code family definition rule. Oxford House counterclaimed under the FHA, charging the City with failure to make a "reasonable accommodation" permitting the maintenance of the group home in a single-family zone. Respondent United States filed a separate action on the same FHA-"reasonable accommodation" ground, and the cases were consolidated. The District Court held that the City's zoning code rule defining "family," ECDC § 21.30.010, is exempt from the FHA under 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1) as a "reasonable . . . restrictio[n] regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 3607(b)(1)'s absolute exemption inapplicable.

Held: Edmonds' zoning code definition of the term "family" is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under § 3607(b)(1). Pp. __.

(a) Congress enacted § 3607(b)(1) against the backdrop of an evident distinction between municipal land use restrictions and maximum occupancy restrictions. Land use restrictions designate districts—e.g., commercial or single-family residential —in which only compatible uses are allowed and incompatible uses are excluded. Reserving land for single-family residences preserves the character of neighborhoods as family residential communities. To limit land use to single-family residences, a municipality must define the term "family"; thus family composition rules are an essential component of single-family use restrictions. Maximum occupancy restrictions, in contradistinction, cap the number of occupants per dwelling, typically on the basis of available floor space or rooms. Their purpose is to protect health and safety by preventing dwelling overcrowding. Section 3607(b)(1)'s language "restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling"—surely encompasses maximum occupancy restrictions, and does not fit family composition rules typically tied to land use restrictions. Pp. __.

(b) The zoning provisions Edmonds invoked against Oxford House, ECDC §§ 16.20.010 and 21.30.010, are classic examples of a use restriction and complementing family composition rule. These provisions do not cap the number of people who may live in a dwelling: So long as they are related by "genetics, adoption, or marriage," any number of people can live in a house. A separate ECDC provision—§ 19.10.000 —caps the number of occupants a dwelling may house, based on floor area, and is thus a prototypical maximum occupancy restriction. In short, the City's family definition rule, ECDC § 21.30.010, describes family living, not living space per occupant. Defining family primarily by biological and legal relationships, the rule also accommodates another group association: five or fewer unrelated people are allowed to live together as though they were family. But this accommodation cannot convert Edmonds' family values preserver into a maximum occupancy restriction. Edmonds' contention that subjecting single-family zoning to FHA scrutiny will overturn Euclidian zoning and destroy the effectiveness and purpose of single-family zoning both ignores the limited scope of the issue before this Court and exaggerates the force of the FHA's antidiscrimination provisions, which require only "reasonable" accommodations. Since only a threshold question is presented in this case, it remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination. Pp. __.

18 F.3d 802 (CA9 1994), affirmed.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined.

W. Scott Snyder, for petitioner.

William F. Sheehan, for private respondents.

Paul Bender, for federal respondent.

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act) prohibits discrimination in housing against, inter alios, persons with handicaps.1 Section 3607(b)(1) of the Act entirely exempts from the FHA's compass "any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1). This case presents the question whether a provision in petitioner City of Edmonds' zoning code qualifies for § 3607(b)(1)'s complete exemption from FHA scrutiny. The provision, governing areas zoned for single-family dwelling units, defines "family" as "persons [without regard to number] related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [unrelated] persons." Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) § 21.30.010 (1991).

The defining provision at issue describes who may compose a family unit; it does not prescribe "the maximum number of occupants" a dwelling unit may house. We hold that § 3607(b)(1) does not exempt prescriptions of the family-defining kind, i.e., provisions designed to foster the family character of a neighborhood. Instead, § 3607(b)(1)'s absolute exemption removes from the FHA's scope only total occupancy limits, i.e., numerical ceilings that serve to prevent overcrowding in living quarters.

I

In the summer of 1990, respondent Oxford House opened a group home in the City of Edmonds, Washington for 10 to 12 adults recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction. The group home, called Oxford House-Edmonds, is located in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residences. Upon learning that Oxford House had leased and was operating a home in Edmonds, the City issued criminal citations to the owner and a resident of the house. The citations charged violation of the zoning code rule that defines who may live in single-family dwelling units. The occupants of such units must compose a "family," and family, under the City's defining rule, "means an individual or two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage." Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) § 21.30.010. Oxford House-Edmonds houses more than five unrelated persons, and therefore does not conform to the code.

Oxford House asserted reliance on the Fair Housing Act, 102 Stat. 1619, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., which declares it unlawful "[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of . . . that buyer or a renter." § 3604(f)(1)(A). The parties have stipulated, for purposes of this litigation, that the residents of Oxford House-Edmonds "are recovering alcoholics and drug addicts and are handicapped persons within the meaning" of the Act. App. 106.

Discrimination covered by the FHA includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." § 3604(f)(3)(B). Oxford House asked Edmonds to make a "reasonable accommodation" by allowing it to remain in the single-family dwelling it had leased. Group homes for recovering substance abusers, Oxford urged, need 8 to 12 residents to be financially and therapeutically viable. Edmonds declined to permit Oxford House to stay in a single-family residential zone, but passed an ordinance listing group homes as permitted uses in multifamily and general commercial zones.

Edmonds sued Oxford House in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking a declaration that the FHA does not constrain the City's zoning code family definition rule. Oxford House counterclaimed under the FHA, charging the City with failure to make a "reasonable accommodation" permitting maintenance of the group home in a single-family zone. The United States filed a separate action on the same FHA-"reasonable accommodation" ground, and the two cases were consolidated. Edmonds suspended its criminal enforcement actions pending resolution of the federal litigation.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that ECDC § 21.30.010, defining "family," is exempt from the FHA under § 3607(b)(1) as a "reasonable . . . restrictio[n] regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling." App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed; holding § 3607(b)(1)'s absolute exemption inapplicable, the Court of Appeals remanded the cases for further consideration of the claims asserted by Oxford House and the United States. Edmonds v. Washington...

To continue reading

Request your trial
208 cases
  • Evans v. Udr, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 24 Marzo 2009
    ...has a "`broad and inclusive' compass" and receives a correspondingly "generous construction." City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 731, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995) (citing Comm'r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739, 109 S.Ct. 1455, 103 L.Ed.2d 753 (1989)). As such, except......
  • Brooker v. Altoona Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 12 Junio 2013
    ...needs of handicapped and disabled individuals constitutes a prohibited form of "discrimination." City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995). No violation occurs, however, if an individual's disability could not have been reasonably accom......
  • Borum v. Brentwood Vill., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 21 Noviembre 2016
    ...Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Richmond Heights, Ohio , 209 F.3d 626, 636 (6th Cir. 2000) ; see also City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. , 514 U.S. 725, 733, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995) (contrasting impermissible policies that target families with permissible policies that "apply unifo......
  • Community Housing Trust v. Dept. of Consumer/Regulatory Aff., Civil Action 01-02120 (D. D.C. 4/16/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 16 Abril 2003
    ...Court has held that the FHAA should be afforded the same generous construction as the original Act. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 731 (1995); see also Samaritan Inns, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3d 1227, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As interpreted, then, the FHAA is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
    • United States
    • Land use planning and the environment: a casebook
    • 23 Enero 2010
    ...The relationship between the statute and the ordinance was the focus of the Supreme Court’s attention in City of Edmunds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725, 729-30, 732, 733-35, 737 (1995). When the city received word that Oxford House had opened a group home for 10 to 12 adults who were recover......
  • Discriminatory housing statements and s. 3604(c): a new look at the Fair Housing Act's most intriguing provision.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 29 No. 1, October 2001
    • 1 Octubre 2001
    ...1998); United States v. Hughes Mem'l Home, 396 F. Supp. 544, 550 (W.D. Va. 1975). See generally City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1995) (FHA's exemptions to be read narrowly). In particular, no reported case has ever held that these [section] 3607(a) exemptions pr......
  • Troubles at the doorstep: the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and group homes for recovering substance abusers.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 No. 2, December 1995
    • 1 Diciembre 1995
    ...that would have allowed a group home to increase its number of residents). (17) See, e.g., City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1776, 1783 (1995) (narrowly addressing the issue whether a zoning regulation limiting occupancy to five or fewer unrelated persons was a use limit or ......
  • Stretching venue beyond constitutional recognition.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 90 No. 3, March 2000
    • 22 Marzo 2000
    ...Cir. 1997). (226) See United States' Brief at 21-22, Rodriguez-Moreno (No. 97-1139). (227) Cf. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1776, 1783-87 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (expressing concern that the majority was willing to intrude upon statutory plain meaning without a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT