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

1,102 chars

(2006)). Accordingly, even though the Supreme Court has
continued to reiterate that differential treatment must be
adverse to be discriminatory, id., its recent espousals of that
rule are not “intervening” decisions that “undercut the theory
or reasoning underlying” Community House such that we are
free to depart from that opinion. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d
889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 689
F.3d 1094, 1104 (9th Cir. 2012), reversed on other grounds,
735 F.3d 1060 (en banc) (reservations about a prior panel’s
application of existing Supreme Court precedent is not
grounds under Gammie to revisit that panel’s decision). To
the extent Community House got the law wrong under
Supreme Court precedent, it was just as wrong when it was
decided as it is now. I thus conclude that in deciding this case
we are compelled to apply Community House’s burden-
shifting framework as written until the en banc court corrects
our error or the Supreme Court issues intervening authority
that permits departure from Community House.
68        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text