Ninth Circuit Upholds Costa Mesa’s Group Home and Sober Living Home Regulations
Court rejects operator’s claims that the City’s ordinance was unlawfully discriminatory
On December 4, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Costa Mesa’s group home and sober-living-home regulations in The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa et al. The Court’s decision rejected a challenge by a sober-living home operator, who claimed that the ordinance violated state and federal fair housing laws. Noteworthy features and takeaways from this decision are summarized below.
Different Treatment Is Not Illegal Discrimination If It Benefits The Protected Class
The key characteristics of the Costa Mesa regulations that were at issue in the case were:
- A general restriction on group living arrangements (boarding houses)
- A special allowance for group homes (serving the disabled) and sober-living homes (serving recovering addicts, a specific legal disability) that allows:
- Small ones (serving six or fewer) with an administrative, ministerially approved, special use permit; and
- Large ones (serving seven or more) with a conditional use permit (CUP).
- A requirement that group homes and sober-living homes be at least 650 feet apart.
The plaintiff, Ohio House, claimed that having rules that single out group homes and sober-living homes for different treatment is illegal discrimination. The Court rejected that, holding that it’s not illegal if the differential treatment is to benefit the disabled — and here, Costa Mesa was giving more and better opportunities to group and sober-living homes (for the disabled) than it was to boarding houses. E.g., small and large boarding houses are prohibited in the R1 zone, but small group homes and sober-living facilities may operate in the R1 zone with a special-use permit.
The Court affirmed that those extra benefits could have strings attached, like separation and CUP or other permit requirements, as long as, on the whole, it works as a net benefit to disabled individuals. It was also important to the Court that Costa Mesa allows a group or sober-living home to proceed under the rules specific to those uses, or under the city’s general boarding house regulations — having more options was a benefit.
The conclusion that Costa Mesa’s regulations benefit the disabled became the linchpin for the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of Ohio House’s other indirect discrimination claims.
Takeaways From Ohio House
In light of the Court’s decision, cities can now have more confidence in:
- Adopting rules that prohibit group living arrangements like boarding houses, while allowing disabled-related housing like group and sober-living homes to still operate, subject to restrictions;
- Imposing an objective separation requirement between group homes and sober-living homes; and
- Requiring a use permit.
The Court’s rationale could also support other local regulations that were not at issue in Ohio House, such as background checks and other qualifications for operators; security and safety plans; treatment-exit plans, and more. As long as the regulations help the disabled by protecting disabled individuals and the “normal residential surroundings” that the disabled are there to benefit from, it might be justified as a permissible distinction benefitting the disabled.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The Court’s decision opens the door for cities within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction (which includes all of California) to further regulate group homes and sober-living homes. In doing so, cities should work closely with legal counsel.
Consult your BBK attorney for assistance in analyzing specific impacts and options following the Ohio House decision.
Disclaimer: BBK Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to your situation or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information herein
