The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,331 chars

individuals has options: It may operate if it meets the
boardinghouse requirements or if it meets the group or sober
living home requirements. Although Ohio House contends
this is an implausible reading of the zoning code and “[w]e
are not bound by a party’s concession as to the meaning of
the law,” United States v. Ogles, 440 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th
Cir. 2006) (en banc), we afford significant weight to a
government’s narrowing interpretation of its own laws. See
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 569 (1992)
(accepting Solicitor General’s repudiation of governmental
authority); United Transp. Union v. Skinner, 975 F.2d 1421,
1425 (9th Cir. 1992) (declining to resolve “dispute regarding
enforcement” when government agency abandoned contrary
interpretation). And we expect that the City will enforce its
zoning code in accordance with its representations to the
district court and to this court. 5 Because the City’s zoning
code, as the City interprets it, gives group homes that serve
the disabled multiple pathways to operate lawfully—only
one of which is open to those not serving the nondisabled—
its facial classification benefits the disabled.
    Take Ohio House’s protest that small boardinghouses
(those with two or fewer rooms) do not need a permit to
operate, while small group homes (six or fewer occupants)

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text