## Facts

- Springfield’s zoning code primarily permits “single-family detached residences” in residential districts and defines “family” to include up to five unrelated persons living together.
- The code separately defines a “family care residence” as a single dwelling occupied by up to six unrelated persons with disabilities, plus paid support staff, in a family-like environment.
- The code imposes a disability-specific spacing rule: a family care residence must be more than 600 feet from another such facility to avoid “over concentration.”
- A nonprofit operator ran a small group home on Noble Avenue for three disabled residents that qualified as a family care residence but was established within 600 feet of another such residence.
- At city hearings, evidence indicated the Noble Avenue home had no interaction with the nearby residence, made no requests of the city, and had not used emergency services while operating.
- The residents sought permission to remain through a conditional use or waiver of the spacing rule; the City denied relief and determined the residents could not continue occupying the home.
- The residents and an estate representative sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), asserting disparate treatment and failure to accommodate.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the spacing rule to evict the residents; the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining the City from enforcing the 600-foot spacing requirement to remove disabled residents, based on a finding of likely FHA and ADA violations.
2. Whether the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success on claims that the spacing rule is facially discriminatory and/or that a waiver was a reasonable accommodation.
3. Whether irreparable harm, inadequate legal remedies, the balance of harms, and the public interest supported preliminary relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under the FHA and ADA.
- The court agreed that eviction and displacement from an established, integrated home posed irreparable harm not adequately remedied by money damages.
- The court found the City’s asserted harms from temporarily not enforcing the spacing rule against this one home were minimal, and the public interest favored compliance with federal civil rights law.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning rule that explicitly regulates housing for persons with disabilities, and not analogous housing for non-disabled persons, can constitute facial disability discrimination under the FHA and ADA.
- Government justifications for disability-specific housing restrictions must be supported by non-pretextual, concrete evidence rather than generalized fears or stereotypes.
- The FHA and ADA may require reasonable accommodations in zoning, including waivers of otherwise applicable restrictions, when necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- In the preliminary-injunction context, threatened eviction and disruption of stable community-based living arrangements for disabled residents can constitute irreparable harm.
- Appellate review of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, with legal conclusions reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction preventing Springfield from enforcing a 600-foot spacing rule against a small disability group home, concluding the plaintiffs were likely to prove FHA/ADA violations and that the equitable factors favored preventing displacement while the case proceeded.


Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2018)