HomeRoom, Inc. v. Shawnee, Kansas, City of
2:23-cv-02209
D. Kan.
Sep 12, 2023

Background

  • Shawnee, Kansas adopted Ordinance No. 3419 (Apr. 2022) defining a “Co‑Living Group” as four or more unrelated adults living together and prohibiting such groups in all residential zones.
  • Plaintiff Val French (homeowner) alleges the ordinance forced two household members to leave and prevents her from inviting/renting to unrelated adults; Plaintiff HomeRoom, Inc. (property manager) alleges the ordinance destroyed its co‑living business model and forced eviction of unrelated subtenants.
  • Plaintiffs sued the City, the City Manager (Gerber), and the Code Enforcement Officer (Messick) in official capacities, asserting: (1) § 1983 substantive due process (intimate association/right to establish a home) facial challenge; (2) § 1983 equal protection facial challenge; and (3) state declaratory relief under K.S.A. § 60‑1701 for alleged violation of the Kansas Zoning Enabling Act.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss; Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss official‑capacity claims against the officers if rulings would bind them. The Court found the official‑capacity claims redundant and dismissed them.
  • The Court dismissed HomeRoom’s constitutional claims for lack of intimate‑association protection and for prudential standing to assert third‑party rights; it dismissed French’s constitutional claims as foreclosed by Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (applying rational‑basis to limits on unrelated residents).
  • The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state‑law zoning claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Are official‑capacity claims against Gerber and Messick duplicative of the City? Plaintiffs named officials to ensure any ruling binds them and to secure enforcement. Official‑capacity suits are tantamount to suits against the municipality and are redundant. Dismissed as duplicative; claims against officials in official capacity dismissed.
2. Can HomeRoom assert an intimate‑association substantive due process claim? HomeRoom asserts its business and affected tenants’ association rights; seeks to vindicate those interests. Corporations lack intimate association rights; HomeRoom cannot assert third‑party intimate‑association rights (prudential standing). Dismissed: corporation has no intimate‑association right and cannot assert third‑party rights here.
3. Does the ordinance facially violate substantive due process or equal protection (right to intimate association/establish a home)? Plaintiffs contend ordinance infringes fundamental rights to intimate association and to establish a home, requiring heightened scrutiny. Defendants rely on Belle Terre, arguing limits on unrelated residents are subject to rational‑basis and are constitutional. Dismissed: Belle Terre controls; ordinance upheld under rational‑basis review; no substantive due process/equal protection violation.
4. Should the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state zoning claim? Plaintiffs invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to decide the Kansas Zoning Enabling Act claim. Defendants urge dismissal of federal claims; if federal claims gone, state claim should be remanded/declined. Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state‑law claim without prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

  • Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) (upholding zoning limit on number of unrelated occupants under rational‑basis review)
  • Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (identifies intimate association protection and explains limits for large/business associations)
  • Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) (prudential standing: third‑party rights require close relationship and hindrance to litigant)
  • Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (permitted vendor to assert certain third‑party rights where statute targeted vendors)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading‑stage plausibility standard)
  • Doe v. City of Butler, Pa., 892 F.2d 315 (3d Cir. 1989) (discusses distinct treatment of zoning rules limiting unrelated versus related residents)
Read the full case