Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries

Majority - Edward J. Lodge

No, the homeless shelter component of the River of Life Facility is not a 'dwelling' as defined by the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and is therefore not subject to its requirements. The FHA defines 'dwelling' as a building 'occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence.' The court considers two factors: (1) whether the facility is intended for occupants to remain for a significant period, and (2) whether occupants view it as a place to return to. Here, the shelter's operational conditions—such as a maximum 17-night stay (outside winter), no fees, dormitory-style rooms, strict entry/exit times, no daytime presence, and limited visitors/mail—demonstrate it is not intended or designed for a 'significant period of time' but rather as a 'place of temporary sojourn or transient visit.' These conditions negate its character as a 'residence' under the FHA. The court distinguishes the present case from Woods v. Foster, where a homeless shelter was deemed a 'dwelling,' due to the longer permissible stays (up to 120 days) and fewer restrictions in that case. Yes, the Rescue Mission's activities of teaching, preaching, proselytizing, and giving preference based on religious participation in its homeless shelter and Discipleship Program are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and applying the FHA to prohibit these activities would violate constitutional rights. The court applied a three-factor test for Free Exercise claims: (1) the magnitude of the statute's impact on religious belief, (2) the existence of a compelling government interest, and (3) the extent to which an exemption would impede statutory objectives. (1) Applying the FHA to prohibit the Rescue Mission's core religious activities, which are central to its mission of spiritual guidance and conversion, would have a 'tremendous negative impact' on its exercise of religious beliefs. (2) While providing fair housing is a compelling government interest, the court finds that some religious interests, particularly those within the 'ecclesiastical sphere' such as a church's right to choose its clergy, are so strong that no compelling governmental interest justifies intrusion. The Mission's activities of limiting program participation to those of the same faith or who desire to be, and imposing religious attendance requirements, fall into this protected sphere. (3) The FHA itself includes a religious exemption (§ 3607(a)), indicating that religious discrimination is allowed in some circumstances. Although the Rescue Mission did not strictly qualify for this statutory exemption (because it did not limit occupancy to 'persons of the same religion' but rather required participation or conversion), recognizing a constitutional exemption in this case, where the purpose of the FHA is defined 'within constitutional limitations,' would not impede the overall purpose of the FHA. The court therefore concluded that the government's compelling interest in fair housing is insufficient to overcome the Rescue Mission's Free Exercise rights. The court declined to rule on the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to a private action. No, the Rescue Mission is entitled to summary judgment on the interference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3617 because the shelter is not a 'dwelling' under the FHA, and the religious activities are protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, those activities cannot be deemed 'interfering' with FHA-protected rights. No, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on their claim of sex discrimination. Plaintiff Cowles' affidavit, which broadly stated that 'similarly-situated male residents' were treated differently regarding work and visitors, was deemed conclusory. It did not demonstrate personal knowledge of specific facts, which is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) to overcome summary judgment.