## Facts

- Charles Baxter organized a not-for-profit entity to operate “Our Place,” a small group residence (about seven residents) for persons with HIV/AIDS in Belleville, Illinois.
- Baxter leased a house in Belleville and applied to the City for a special use permit to operate the residence.
- During zoning and city council proceedings, objections focused on proximity to a junior high school, fear of HIV transmission, assumptions about residents’ sexuality and drug use, sanitation concerns, and potential effects on property values.
- The aldermen representing the ward where the property was located supported the permit, but the City Council denied the application by a 9–7 vote.
- The City later claimed the denial rested on doubts about Baxter’s ability to operate the home, but evidence indicated the decision was driven primarily by community fear and stigma associated with AIDS.
- The City did not consult medical authorities regarding transmission risk; evidence presented indicated the proposed residence posed no realistic risk to the broader community.
- Baxter sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Fourteenth Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction requiring the City to allow the residence to open.

## Issues

1. Whether Baxter had standing under the FHA to challenge the City’s denial of a special use permit for a group residence serving persons with HIV/AIDS.
2. Whether the permit denial likely violated the FHA as discrimination based on handicap, including whether persons with HIV/AIDS are “handicapped” under the FHA and whether the City could justify denial under the FHA’s “direct threat” exception.
3. Whether the standards for preliminary injunctive relief favored ordering the City to permit operation of the residence pending final resolution.

## Decision

- The court held Baxter had standing under the FHA based on concrete economic injury from the denial and his direct involvement in providing housing to the intended residents.
- The court found Baxter showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits that the City’s denial constituted unlawful discrimination under the FHA.
- The court concluded individuals with HIV/AIDS qualify as “handicapped” under the FHA and are protected from housing discrimination.
- The court rejected the City’s asserted justifications as pretextual and found the decision was driven by fear and stereotypes rather than legitimate, evidence-based zoning concerns.
- The court held the City failed to show the proposed residents posed a “direct threat” to others’ health or safety because it produced no competent, individualized, medically grounded evidence of danger.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the City to allow the residence to open.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA’s standing provisions are broad and permit suit by persons suffering direct or indirect injury from discriminatory housing practices, including economic injury tied to denied housing opportunities.
- Persons with HIV/AIDS are “handicapped” for FHA purposes and are protected from discriminatory municipal actions affecting housing, including zoning and permitting decisions.
- Discriminatory housing decisions may be inferred where government action is based on community hostility, stigma, or unsupported assumptions rather than legitimate, neutral criteria.
- The FHA “direct threat” exception is narrow and requires a fact-based showing of actual danger; generalized fear, misinformation, or speculative public-safety concerns are insufficient.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate where the plaintiff shows likelihood of success, irreparable harm from ongoing discrimination, a favorable balance of harms, and consistency with the public interest in preventing unlawful housing discrimination.

## Conclusion

The court ordered preliminary injunctive relief because Baxter had standing and was likely to prove the City denied a permit for an HIV/AIDS group residence based on fear and stereotypes, not legitimate zoning reasons, and the City failed to establish any medically supported “direct threat” that could justify exclusion under the FHA.


Baxter v. City of Belleville, 720 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ill. 1989)