Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to sober living homes

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the city of Costa Mesa’s appeal of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that sober living home operators do not have to prove each of their residents is disabled to qualify for exemptions from zoning laws.

The court’s rejection of the city’s writ of certiorari does not mean the city will lose its underlying lawsuit against the operators, but the case will have to go to trial.

The decision upholds a ruling written by 9th Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, who reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of Santa Ana in favor of the city. City of Costa Mesa, California v. SoCal Recovery LLC, 23-71 (S. Ct., filed July 21, 2023).

Since then, Selna rejected a summary judgment motion by the city to dismiss the lawsuit by SoCal Recovery LLC and other sober living facilities in August. No trial date has been set in the case, Elizabeth N. Brancart of Brancart & Brancart, who represents the facilities, wrote in an email.

In January, Bennett wrote for a 9th Circuit panel that people recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction who live in the group homes “are considered handicapped under state or federal law” under the city’s own statute.

“Because the district court erred by requiring appellants to adduce individualized evidence of actual disability and failing to consider evidence that the city regarded the residents of the sober living homes as disabled, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in both cases,” he wrote.

The city’s attempts to regulate and limit sober living homes, including their locations, have been upheld by Selna and a previous 9th Circuit decision. The statutes dramatically reduced the number of such homes in the city, from 94 in 2014 to 16 in January 2023, according to the opinion.

The U.S. Department of Justice sided with the group home operators in an amicus curiae brief before the 9th Circuit, arguing that Selna’s standard was “overly burdensome” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.

“We’re not aware of any other court that imposed such a restrictive standard on the group homes,” Justice Department attorney Brant S. Levine told the panel during oral arguments last year.

Mary-Christine “M.C.” Sungaila, a partner with the Complex Appellate Litigation Group who represents the city, said Monday the legal battle isn’t over yet.

“While we are disappointed that the court declined to hear the case, this is not the end, either for the issues raised or for this case,” she wrote. “We look forward to the city prevailing at trial in this case, as it has in two prior trials challenging these ordinances.”

Kimberly H. Barlow, a partner with Jones & Mayer who also is Costa Mesa’s city attorney, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision not to take the case. “Until it is resolved, regulating these sober living businesses for the protection of their vulnerable clients is going to continue to be expensive and burdensome,” she wrote.

In her opposition to the city’s writ petition, Brancart argued that Bennett’s ruling did not create a circuit split.

“Review is not warranted because the differences in opinions and outcomes in the cases cited by the city do not turn on disagreements about the applicable standard, but on the specific facts and evidentiary records presented in each case,” she wrote.

Kelly M. Hagemann, a partner with Michelman & Robinson LLP who represents health care providers, expressed relief that the Supreme Court didn’t take the case.

“If the [9th Circuit] decision was reversed, it would have been almost impossible to open a facility,” she said in a phone interview, citing not just sober living homes but other facilities for mental health treatment in residential areas that cities often oppose.

“It would have impacted all behavioral health care providers,” she said. “An individualized showing of disability would have been very difficult.”