## Facts

- Geraldine Larkin sought a Michigan license to operate an adult foster care (AFC) group home for up to four adults with disabilities in Westland, Michigan.
- Michigan’s Adult Foster Care Licensing Act imposed (1) a 1,500-foot spacing rule and (2) a municipal notice and “excessive concentration” review for community residential facilities serving persons with disabilities.
- The Department of Social Services (DSS) notified the City of Westland as required by the statute.
- Westland determined an existing AFC facility was within 1,500 feet and did not waive the spacing restriction.
- DSS denied Larkin’s license application based on the statutory spacing/concentration scheme.
- Larkin and the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service sued, alleging the spacing and notice provisions conflicted with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and also violated equal protection.
- The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, enjoined enforcement of the provisions, and DSS appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan’s 1,500-foot spacing limitation and municipal notice/“excessive concentration” review for AFC homes for persons with disabilities are preempted by the FHA as amended.
2. Whether the court must reach the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause challenge if FHA preemption resolves the case.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Larkin and MPAS.
- The court held the FHA preempted the challenged spacing and notice provisions because they were facially discriminatory against persons with disabilities and conflicted with the FHA’s anti-discrimination requirements.
- The court declined to decide the equal protection claim because the FHA preemption ruling was dispositive.
- The injunction barring enforcement of the spacing and notice/concentration provisions remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- State and local laws are preempted to the extent they require or permit housing practices that the FHA forbids.
- A statute that singles out dwellings for persons with disabilities for special spacing limits or special governmental review is facially discriminatory under the FHA.
- Asserted benign objectives (such as “integration” or avoiding clustering) do not justify categorical distance buffers or concentration caps applicable only to housing for persons with disabilities.
- Mechanistic spacing rules and notice schemes that lack individualized assessment, and that tend to facilitate community opposition, conflict with the FHA’s protections for persons with disabilities.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Michigan could not enforce statutory spacing and municipal notice/“excessive concentration” requirements that uniquely burdened small residential homes for persons with disabilities, because those provisions conflicted with and were preempted by the Fair Housing Act.


Larkin v. State of Mich. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 89 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 1996)