147 F. Supp. 3d 390
D. Md.2015Background
- Adams Housing, LLC owns a rental house in Salisbury, MD (R-10 single-family zoning) leased to three tenants: two brothers and a lifelong friend. The city code limits occupancy in R-10 to no more than two unrelated persons (with a separate "functional family" application process).
- A Salisbury code officer issued an "Order to Reduce Occupancy" finding the three tenants violated the two-unrelated-person rule; the Housing Board of Adjustments and Appeals (HBAA) upheld the order and allowed occupancy until lease end.
- Adams Housing sued in federal court seeking declaratory relief (facial and as-applied challenges under Due Process and Equal Protection), a vagueness declaration, and tortious interference damages; Salisbury moved to dismiss.
- The court dismissed Adams Housing’s facial constitutional challenge (rational-basis review) and its tortious-interference claim (immunity/LGTCA grounds).
- The court held the ordinance unconstitutionally vague as-applied to Adams Housing because Salisbury’s interpretation/enforcement produced a legally incoherent result and inconsistent past enforcement, depriving Adams Housing of fair notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to two-unrelated-person cap | Ordinance arbitrarily restricts occupancy without rational relation to overcrowding or welfare | Ordinance rationally aimed at reducing overcrowding, traffic, noise; supported by precedent | Dismissed — ordinance survives rational-basis review |
| Vagueness of "functional family" definition | Definition grants unfettered discretion; lacks notice | Plaintiffs failed to follow administrative process; claim speculative | Dismissed for lack of standing (no administrative determination sought) |
| Vagueness of two-unrelated-person cap (facial) | Text is vague and subject to arbitrary enforcement | Text is clear: >2 unrelated persons prohibited | Facial challenge dismissed — text clear on its face |
| Vagueness of two-unrelated-person cap (as-applied) | City’s interpretation/counting of "unrelated" produced inconsistent, impossible results and prior inconsistent enforcement, denying fair notice | City interprets groups must fit exclusively into categories; enforcement consistent with ordinance purpose | Granted as-applied — court finds enforcement/interpretation unconstitutionally vague as applied to Adams Housing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (procedural standard for facial challenges)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (zoning as traditional police power)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (rational-basis review for economic/regulatory zoning)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (any conceivable basis supports statute under rational-basis)
- Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (upholding similar restriction on unrelated persons to prevent urban problems)
- Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (void-for-vagueness notice principle)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (vagueness: notice and arbitrary enforcement concerns)
- Doe v. City of Butler, 892 F.2d 315 (parking/traffic/density as rational basis for occupancy restriction)