United States v. City of Baltimore, 845 F. Supp. 2d 640

Plaintiffs DOJ and BCSAD sue City of Baltimore challenging the Zoning Code CO requirement for RSATPs under the ADA and FHA.
CO applies to homes for the rehabilitation of non-bedridden alcoholics located in districts where otherwise eligible, imposing a months-long process.
RSATPs are residential treatment facilities; Maryland law governs their admission criteria and certification.
Record shows City historically enforces CO for 17+ resident RSATPs but not for smaller ones or those located under other classifications.
City developed a reasonable accommodation policy to allow some RSATPs to locate without a CO, and to some extent permits some RSATPs under alternative classifications.
Court grants Plaintiffs’ summary judgment on facial discrimination, but tailors remedy to reflect actual practice and grant relief narrowly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does CO facially discriminate against RSATPs under the ADA/FHA?	RSATPs treated differently than comparable uses; CO is facially discriminatory.	CO applies to legitimate land-use concerns and is not inherently discriminatory.	CO is facially overbroad and discriminatory; remedy required.
Are RSATPs protected as 'disabled' under the ADA and 'handicapped' under the FHA?	RSATPs house individuals with impairments and are protected once in supervised rehabilitation.	City disputes categorical protections but acknowledges disability for RSATPs under statutes.	RSATPs’ residents qualify as disabled/handicapped under ADA/FHA.
Is the CO discriminatory as applied to larger RSATPs (17+ residents)?	Larger RSATPs are treated differently in practice than smaller ones.	No discrimination in practice for larger RSATPs; CO serves legitimate land-use goals.	Not discriminatory as applied to larger RSATPs.
What is the appropriate remedy for the discriminatory CO provision?	Strike or narrowly tailor CO; ensure compliance with ADA/FHA.	Modify code through legislative change but avoid broader invalidation.	Modify CO language to apply only to larger RSATPs not eligible as permitted uses; 60-day deadline to enact or court order.

Doe v. City of Butler, Pa., 892 F.2d 315 (3d Cir.1989) (zoning and disability protections apply to municipal land-use decisions)
Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096 (3d Cir.1996) (deference to municipal zoning but subject to federal protections)
Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery Cnty., 823 F. Supp. 1285 (D. Md.1993) (neighborhood requirements can be challenged under ADA/FHA)
United States v. Southern Mgmt. Corp., 955 F.2d 914 (4th Cir.1992) (recognition that residents of supervised rehab programs are protected under ADA)
Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.1999) (significant risk analysis for health/safety in disability discrimination context)