HomeRoom, Inc., a property management company, and Val French, a private citizen, sued the City of Shawnee, Kansas, and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit challenged Ordinance No. 3419, which prohibits 'Co-Living Groups'—defined as four or more unrelated persons age eighteen or older living together—from residing in residential zones. The ordinance applies to both owner-occupied and rental properties. Ms. French, who owned a home with her husband, two adult sons, and one son's girlfriend, alleged the ordinance forced her son and his girlfriend to move out because the girlfriend was unrelated to the rest of the household. HomeRoom, which manages properties for investors and previously sublet to unrelated roommates, alleged the ordinance forced it to evict unrelated tenants and restrict subletting to blood-related families only. Both plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated their substantive due process rights to intimate association and their equal protection rights by creating a discriminatory classification between related and unrelated households. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing HomeRoom lacked standing as a corporation and that the ordinance survived rational basis scrutiny under the Supreme Court's decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against HomeRoom for lack of standing and dismissing Ms. French's constitutional claims based on Belle Terre. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting the well-pleaded facts from the complaint as true. The court first addressed standing, noting that while HomeRoom, as a corporation, has no constitutionally protected right of intimate association, Ms. French undisputedly had standing to assert her own claims. Therefore, the court proceeded to the merits of Ms. French's constitutional arguments without needing to resolve HomeRoom's prudential standing to assert third-party rights. On the merits, the court focused on whether the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, which upheld a similar zoning ordinance limiting unrelated occupants, no longer controlled the law. They cited Moore v. City of East Cleveland and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center to suggest that the legal landscape had shifted to require stricter scrutiny or that Belle Terre's authority had been diminished. The court rejected these arguments. It explained that Moore involved an ordinance restricting related individuals, not unrelated ones, and thus distinguished rather than diminished Belle Terre. Similarly, the court found Cleburne factually inapposite because it involved discrimination against the mentally retarded, a group not implicated here, and did not establish a new standard of rational basis review for zoning ordinances distinguishing between families and unrelated people. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument that Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, which recognized a right of intimate association, required strict scrutiny for zoning ordinances. The court held that Roberts did not alter the framework established in Belle Terre for analyzing zoning restrictions on unrelated occupants. The court noted that Roberts involved a large, unselective organization, whereas the intimate association right in the context of a home is governed by Belle Terre's deference to legislative judgments on land use. The court also dismissed reliance on Roommate.com, noting that case concerned the Fair Housing Act and constitutional avoidance, not the substantive constitutionality of zoning ordinances under the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying rational basis review, the court found the ordinance's goal of maintaining the single-family character of neighborhoods was a legitimate public interest. The court concluded that the ordinance did not involve a fundamental right nor a suspect classification, and thus survived rational basis scrutiny. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, stating that Belle Terre remains good law and binding authority on this issue.
The decision affirms the City of Shawnee's ability to enforce Ordinance No. 3419, which limits unrelated occupants in residential zones. Property management companies like HomeRoom must continue to restrict subletting to related families or face eviction of unrelated tenants. The ruling reinforces the continued viability of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas as the controlling standard for zoning ordinances that limit the number of unrelated people living together, rejecting arguments that subsequent jurisprudence has eroded its authority. The plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance is unsuccessful, and no further relief is available under the current legal framework.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download