## Facts

- Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. and California Detoxification Programs, Inc. operated a long-running outpatient methadone maintenance and heroin detoxification clinic in a Contra Costa County courthouse in Pittsburg, California.
- After the County gave notice that the clinic’s courthouse lease would end, the providers sought to relocate near Antioch or Pittsburg, where many patients lived.
- City planning staff informed the providers that the proposed Antioch site was permitted under existing zoning.
- Following public opposition expressing concerns about crime and safety associated with methadone clinics, the City Council enacted an urgency ordinance barring methadone clinics within 500 feet of residentially zoned property.
- The setback disqualified the proposed site and, according to plaintiffs, left no feasible alternative locations in Antioch.
- The providers and patient-plaintiffs sued the City under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and asserted additional constitutional and § 1983 claims) and sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance.
- The district court denied preliminary relief, treating the ordinance as a neutral regulation analyzed primarily under a reasonable-modification framework and finding insufficient irreparable harm and likelihood of success.

## Issues

1. Whether Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to municipal zoning ordinances.
2. Whether a zoning ordinance that expressly targets methadone clinics must be evaluated as facial disability discrimination rather than as a reasonable-modification (accommodation) dispute.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction by using the wrong legal standard for likelihood of success and by undervaluing irreparable harm from disruption of treatment and alleged statutory violations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that municipal zoning is a “service,” “program,” or “activity” of a public entity covered by Title II of the ADA and is also subject to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The court concluded the urgency ordinance was facially discriminatory because it singled out methadone clinics—facilities serving individuals with addiction-related disabilities—for unique restrictive treatment.
- The court ruled the district court applied the wrong legal test by treating the case chiefly as a reasonable-modification matter rather than addressing facial discrimination and the City’s potential justification.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act reach zoning and land-use decisions by covered public entities.
- A land-use rule that on its face targets facilities serving people with disabilities is presumptively unlawful unless the public entity establishes a valid statutory justification, commonly framed as lack of “qualified” status due to a significant health-or-safety risk that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
- Any claimed safety justification must rest on objective evidence and an individualized assessment in the operational context, not on stereotypes, generalized fears, or community animus.
- In civil-rights cases, interference with federally protected anti-discrimination rights and disruption of access to medical treatment may constitute irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit treated the City’s methadone-clinic setback ordinance as facial disability discrimination subject to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, rejected the district court’s accommodation-focused approach, and reversed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief for reconsideration under a significant-risk, evidence-based framework.


Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999)