Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
490 F.3d 1041, 2007 WL 1651315 (2007)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the Fair Housing Act, a policy that explicitly excludes a protected class is facially discriminatory and requires the defendant to prove the restriction is a bona fide occupational qualification or justified by safety necessity, rather than assessing it under a burden-shifting pretext framework. Additionally, under the Establishment Clause, the government violates the prohibition on advancing religion when it provides public aid, such as a building, that is actually diverted to religious indoctrination.

Facts:

Community House, Inc. (CHI) and the City of Boise jointly developed a homeless shelter called Community House to serve men, women, and families.
The City assumed management of the facility and subsequently leased it to the Boise Rescue Mission (BRM), a Christian non-profit organization, for $1 per year.
BRM maintained a policy of segregating residents by gender and designated Community House as a men-only facility.
In preparation for the transition to BRM management, the City and BRM forced women, families, and many disabled residents to move out of Community House.
These displaced residents faced significant hardship due to a shortage of alternative housing.
BRM conducts daily Christian chapel services at the facility consisting of singing, scripture reading, and preaching.
The lease arrangement involved the City continuing to insure the building and pay for repairs while BRM paid nominal rent.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Establishment Clause.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the removal of residents and to void the lease.
The District Court granted the injunction in part (regarding sex offenders) but denied the request to reinstate the excluded residents and denied the request to stop the religious activities.
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the broader preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a city's policy of excluding women and families from a public homeless shelter constitute facial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and does the city's lease of that shelter to a religious organization that conducts worship services violate the Establishment Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Thompson

Yes. The court reversed the lower court's denial of the preliminary injunction regarding both the men-only policy and the religious activities. Regarding the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the court determined that the policy explicitly treating women and families differently constitutes 'facial discrimination.' Therefore, the district court erred by applying the 'McDonnell Douglas' burden-shifting test, which is used for uncovering hidden discrimination. Instead, the court must apply the stricter standard from 'Johnson Controls,' where the defendant must justify the discrimination with a 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ) or objective safety necessity. The City failed to provide sufficient evidence that safety concerns justified the exclusion of women. Regarding the Establishment Clause, the court applied the 'Lemon' test as modified by 'Agostini.' While the lease had a secular purpose (housing), it failed the 'effect' prong because the government aid (the building) was being 'actually diverted' to religious indoctrination (chapel services). Under Justice O'Connor's controlling concurrence in 'Mitchell v. Helms,' actual diversion of government aid to religious use is unconstitutional, regardless of whether the aid is distributed neutrally.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Callahan

No, in part. While the judge agreed that the 'Johnson Controls' standard was the correct legal test for the FHA claim, she argued that the record already contained sufficient evidence to justify the men-only policy based on safety concerns and the long-term goal of increasing shelter space for women elsewhere. Regarding the Establishment Clause, the dissent argued that voluntary chapel services do not constitute 'government indoctrination' attributable to the City. The judge contended that the lease was a neutral transaction to provide shelter and that the 'aid' (nominal rent) was de minimis, meaning there was no substantial diversion of public resources to religion that would warrant an injunction.

Analysis:

This case is significant because it clarifies the burden of proof in Fair Housing Act cases within the Ninth Circuit. It establishes that when a housing policy is explicitly discriminatory (e.g., "men only"), courts cannot use the 'McDonnell Douglas' framework, which looks for hidden motives. Instead, the defendant bears a heavy burden to justify the discrimination for safety or necessity reasons. Furthermore, the decision enforces a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause regarding public property. It adopts the 'actual diversion' theory, holding that even if a government program is neutral, the actual use of government-financed facilities for religious worship is impermissible. This limits how municipalities can partner with faith-based organizations when public assets are directly used for religious activities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"