Case Law

CIVIL RIGHTS AND Fair Housing

Discrimination Based on Marital Status

Thoma v Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, U.S. District Court, Anchorage, AK (January 25, 1997).

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT: Regardless of fair housing law, which prohibits discrimination based on marital status, can a landlord refuse to rent to an unmarried couple because of his religious beliefs?

FACTS: Three Alaskan landlords who identified themselves as Christians challenged that portion of city and state fair housing law prohibiting discrimination based on marital status on grounds that renting to unmarried couples violated their religion.

DECISION: The federal district judge ruled in favor of the landlords by stating that the city's and state's interest in ending discrimination was not compelling enough to outweigh the right to religious expression; he further noted that forcing persons to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Refusal to Rent to Unmarried Couples has been a continuing saga involving Alaska and Michigan court cases, both of which challenged state fair housing statutes that include "marital status" as a protected class. The landlords in both cases alleged that being forced to rent to unmarried cohabitants violated their deeply held religious beliefs and infringed on their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religious expression.

In the Alaska case as reported above and cited as Thomas v Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 165 F3d 692 (9"' Cir 1999), the U.S. 9"' Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Alaska fair housing statute not only infringed on a landlord's First Amendment rights, but also concluded that it violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibiting the taking of private property without payment of just compensation. The landlord in this case had never been sued by a prospective tenant or investigated by the city or state Equal Rights Commissions, but simply challenged the statute as being unconstitutional.

The Court upon request later set aside its decision and referred the issue for rehearing by a new panel of judges. Thomas v Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 192 F3d 1208 (9the Cir 1999).

Thomas v Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 2000 US App LEXIS 18696 (9^th Cir 2000).

Question before the court: Despite a fair housing statute that makes "marital status" a protected class, a landlord refuses to rent to unmarried cohabitants because of his deeply held religious beliefs. If nobody has ever complained about the landlord's practice or filed an action against him, does the landlord have legal standing to challenge the statute?

DECISION: In what it called "a case in search of a controversy," the U.S. 9'h Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the landlord had no legal standing to challenge the fair housing statute unless somebody complained or filed an action because of his practice.

The final decision of the court makes everything argued in Alaska Moot.