Fed. Dist. Court in KS Upholds Local Ordinance Restricting the Number of Unrelated Individuals Who Can Reside Together

This post was authored by Maria Lambros, Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

In April 2022, the City of Shawnee (“City’) adopted Ordinance No. 3419 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits Co-Living Groups from residing together in all residential-use zoning districts throughout the City. “Co-Living Group” is defined in the Ordinance as “a group of four (4) or more unrelated persons” and “related persons” is defined as “[p]ersons related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship… or a person having legal custody of a minor.”

The Plaintiffs in this case are Val French (“French’), a private citizen, and HomeRoom, Inc. (“Homeroom”), a property management startup company. French resided in a home with her husband, their two adult sons, and one of their son’s girlfriends. Because the son’s girlfriend did not fall under the category of a “related person,” this family’s living arrangement was in violation of the Ordinance. As a result, French’s son and his girlfriend had to move out of the home. HomeRoom’s business involved linking property owners with potential tenants and helping individuals seeking co-living arrangements. Because HomeRoom subleased properties to unrelated tenants, they were forced to evict these unrelated individuals to comply with the Ordinance.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City, City Manager, and the City’s primary Code Enforcement Officer (in their official capacities). Plaintiffs brought two 42 U.S.C §1983 claims under the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) alleging the Ordinance violated their right to intimate association; and (2) a facial challenge to the Ordinance, based on Equal Protection. Last, they alleged the Ordinance was not in compliance with the Kansas Zoning Enabling Act and requested declaratory relief under K.S.A. § 60-1701. 

First, the court dismissed the claims against the City Manager and the City’s Code Enforcement Officer as duplicative. Since they were being sued in their official capacity, this was synonymous with bringing a lawsuit against the City, who was already a named party.

Next, the court addressed the claims brought by HomeRoom. Based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the court held that HomeRoom lacked a constitutionally protected right to intimate association as a corporate entity. Additionally, they lacked standing to assert constitutional claims on behalf of third-party would-be sublessees.

In addressing French’s constitutional claims, the court stated that Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) serves as binding precedent over these issues in federal court. There, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of a local ordinance that imposes restrictions on the number of unrelated individuals who can live together. Under rational basis scrutiny, this restriction was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Therefore, based on precedent, the court found the Ordinance to be constitutional, and dismissed French’s constitutional claims.

With respect to French’s claim under the Kansas Zoning Enabling Act, the court dismissed the state-law claim, without prejudice, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

HomeRoom, Inc. v. Shawnee, Kansas, City of, 2023 WL 5929438, (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2023).