El Paso County’s land-use code violated federal housing law by placing discriminatory caps on group-living facilities for people recovering from drug addiction, the federal appeals court based in Denver ruled on Tuesday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded the county provided no valid justification for treating rehabilitation facilities differently from other types of group homes, yet it imposed lower occupancy limits through its land development code. Because people in addiction recovery qualify as disabled under federal law, the county’s differential treatment was unlawful.

“Sometimes, zoning officials might relent to housing discrimination after campaigns by neighborhood homeowners concerned that the presence of people recovering from addiction will degrade their quiet neighborhoods. In other situations, local governments may ban or more strictly regulate group homes for disabled persons without an adequate justification,” wrote Judge Gregory A. Phillips in the panel’s July 18 opinion. “In either situation, the result is the same: Group homes for disabled persons are zoned out of the neighborhoods of nondisabled homeowners.”

Rachel B. Maxam, who represented plaintiff Soaring Hope Recovery Center, said if El Paso County does not change its code to comply with the ruling, she will seek an injunction.

“A court can decide a law is discriminatory on its face. It doesn’t require a dispute over facts,” she said.

A spokesperson for the county said staff are reviewing the decision with legal counsel, but noted that last year, the board of county commissioners enacted revisions to the portions governing group homes and addiction recovery facilities.

Case: Courage to Change v. El Paso County

Decided: July 18, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Gregory A. Phillips (author)

Paul J. Kelly Jr.

Scott M. Matheson Jr.

Soaring Hope first sought to operate an addiction recovery center around 2011 in a single-family home in Colorado Springs, but the county denied its application. Soaring Hope filed a complaint with the federal government, prompting the Department of Justice to investigate. In response, El Paso County promised to amend its code to reflect the protections for disabled people in federal law.

In 2014, the county set a five-occupant limit for group homes for disabled people, requiring a special permit to exceed the cap. However, it allowed higher occupancy for other types of group homes – eight residents by default at homes for old-age residents, for example. Moreover, rehabilitation facilities were not allowed in single-family zoning districts under the revisions.

Soaring Hope, which began operating a five-bedroom, supervised facility on Spruce Road that same year, wanted to expand to serve more residents. But the county noted several of Soaring Hope’s rehabilitation activities – yoga, therapies and “talking circles” – were prohibited in a residential district. El Paso County’s planning director gave Soaring Hope the option of moving its rehabilitation services elsewhere and adhering to the five-person limit for group homes serving disabled people. Soaring Hope agreed to do so.

Soaring Hope closed the Spruce Street home in 2019 after financial difficulties from complying with the county’s requirements.

The organization then sued El Paso County, alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and other provisions of federal law.

In July 2020, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez decided to send some of Soaring Hope’s claims to a jury trial. He acknowledged the county imposed lower occupancy limits on group homes for disabled people than for other types of group homes. But the county gave two reasons: First, there is a limit of five unrelated roommates who can live together in a single-family home. Second, state law provides limits for certain nondisabled group homes.

“There may well be rational explanations for the different occupancy levels,” Martínez wrote. Because a jury “could find that the different occupancy levels are based on bona fide governmental concerns,” he declined to rule in Soaring Hope’s favor.

At trial, a jury subsequently sided with El Paso County.

Soaring Hope appealed, arguing the county’s restrictions on rehabilitation facilities and group homes for the disabled necessarily amounted to discrimination, because nondisabled group homes did not face similar prohibitions.

“I’m not suggesting (El Paso County) cannot create zoning laws to some extent,” Maxam told the appellate panel last fall. “They cannot do so to exclude disabled persons from residential communities.”

The 10th Circuit agreed with her. Comparing group homes for people with disabilities to other types of group homes, it was clear the county singled out the former.

Martínez, wrote Phillips, incorrectly sided against Soaring Hope on the theory that El Paso County would provide “rational explanations” for its discrimination at trial. The county’s only two justifications – the limit on unrelated roommates and requirements of state law – were invalid reasons for discriminating against disabled residents.

In addition to ordering Martínez to rule in favor of Soaring Hope on its claim related to occupancy limits, the 10th Circuit also directed him to evaluate whether El Paso County “zoned-out” rehabilitation facilities from single-family communities in a discriminatory fashion.

“The record supports a conclusion that the County treated nondisabled residents more favorably than it did Soaring Hope,” wrote Phillips. “The County allowed other structured group-living arrangements to engage in medical and mental-health therapies in their homes while prohibiting the same activities in the Spruce Road home.”

The case is Courage to Change Ranches Holding Company et al. v. El Paso County.