A Douglas County judge has ruled against a group of landlords who sued the City of Lawrence over an ordinance that bans discrimination against some prospective tenants.
The Lawrence City Commission in February 2023 approved an ordinance change that creates a protected class based on renters’ source of income, as well as their status as a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking or stalking. It also disallows discrimination based on prospective tenants’ immigration status. The ordinance went into effect June 1, 2023.
Local housing advocates have said that the protections could significantly help lessen Lawrence’s housing and homelessness crises, because many families who qualify for housing vouchers are unable to find landlords who will accept them.
In court filings, the Landlords of Lawrence — an association of 30-plus local landlords, a member estimated during his testimony last year — said the language of the city’s ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. They said it was unclear what the city means by “source of income,” and that the ordinance infringes on their discretion as businesspeople.
The landlords had sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance, based on several legal arguments.
District Judge Mark Simpson wrote in a memorandum decision filed Tuesday afternoon that “After careful consideration, the court determines that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally overbroad, and that federal law does not preempt the Ordinance.”
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
Simpson wrote that the ordinance’s definition of “source of income” was easily understood.
“Certainly, the Ordinance covers a wide range of factual scenarios; however, the prohibited conduct is simple and clear: a landlord shall not consider the source of a prospective tenant’s rent payments in determining whether to rent to that person,” Simpson wrote. “The Ordinance is easily enforced because the prohibited conduct is precisely described.”
“… Plaintiff argues that the Ordinance means a landlord would have to rent to a drug dealer, a human trafficker, or even an ‘assassin.’ There is nothing in the ordinance that prevents a landlord from declining to rent to someone who is engaged in dangerous, illegal conduct that might make them a risky tenant,” the decision continued. “In that instance, it is the illegality of the prospective tenant’s conduct that is legitimately considered by a landlord, not the source of their income.”
Two landlords, Billy Williams and Sue Herynk, shared examples of how the ordinance would affect their businesses.
Williams testified that he participates in voucher programs for some of his properties, but not all. He said he asks prospective tenants’ immigration statuses because “In Mr. Williams’ business judgment, a heightened potential for a tenant’s apprehension and/or removal creates a significant risk of non-payment of rent over the lease term that is a direct result of the tenant’s immigration status,” Simpson summarized in his ruling.
A prospective tenant made a complaint with the city about Herynk, whose written policies say a prospective tenant who is “[i]n the United States illegally” is disqualified.
But the complainant alleged that Herynk told them that a unit was nearly move-in ready until Herynk learned that the complainant’s source of income was housing vouchers. The complainant alleged Herynk then said her company doesn’t participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program “because participation would leave the landlord with uncovered liability in the case that the tenant were to abandon or damage the property,” the decision states.
Simpson found that Williams and Herynk suffered injury as a result of the ordinance and had standing to challenge it “on vagueness and preemption grounds.” However, he ruled in favor of the city on both arguments.
Adam Hall represented the landlords and Michelle Stewart represented the city. The case had been set for a bench trial, but the judge ruled on the parties’ motions for summary judgment instead.
The full memorandum decision is below.
DG-2023-CV-000161-Memorandum-Decision-and-JE-rIf our local journalism matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark@lawrencekstimes.com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.
More coverage:
Molly Adams / Lawrence Times
Molly Adams / Lawrence Times
Latest Lawrence news:
Chloe Anderson/Lawrence Times
