City of Edmondsv.Oxford House, Inc.

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.¹ The group home, called Oxford House-Edmonds, is located in a neighborhood zoned for single-family residences.² 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.³

The citations charged violation of the zoning code rule that defines who may live in single-family dwelling units.⁴ 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."⁵ Oxford House-Edmonds houses more than five unrelated persons, and therefore does not conform to the code.⁶

Oxford House asserted reliance on the Fair Housing Act.⁷ 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.⁸ Oxford House asked Edmonds to make a "reasonable accommodation" by allowing it to remain in the single-family dwelling it had leased.⁹ 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.¹⁰

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.¹¹ 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.¹² The United States filed a separate action on the same FHA "reasonable accommodation" ground, and the two cases were consolidated.¹³ Edmonds suspended its criminal enforcement actions pending resolution of the federal litigation.¹⁴

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that the defining provision is exempt from the FHA under § 3607(b)(1).¹⁵ The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the absolute exemption inapplicable, and remanded the cases for further consideration.¹⁶ The Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with an Eleventh Circuit decision declaring exempt a similar family definition provision.¹⁷ The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.¹⁸