City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
514 U.S. 725 (1995)
- Written by Dennis Chong, JD
Facts
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits housing discrimination against handicapped people. Section 3607(b)(1), an exemption written into this act, permits any reasonable statute or ordinance that sets the maximum number of occupants a dwelling may contain. Here, the City of Edmonds (defendant) enacted an ordinance that defined who may occupy a single-family home. It stated that anyone who is related by blood, marriage or adoption may live together, or if unrelated, five or fewer persons. In 1990, Oxford House, Inc. (plaintiff) opened a group home in a single-family home in Edmonds. Both parties have agreed that the residents of the home, recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, are considered handicapped under the FHA. Shortly after opening the group home, Oxford received citations from Edmonds, charging Oxford with violations of the city’s zoning ordinance regarding single-family homes. Oxford House brought this action to challenge the citations. The district court ruled that the restrictions on whom was to be considered a family in the Edmonds ordinance was a lawful exemption as it limited the number of occupants residing in a single-family home. Oxford House appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the exemption in the FHA did not apply to the ordinance in question. Edmunds petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.