816
May 30, 2000
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
United States Senator
308 U.S. Courthouse
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Dear Senator Shelby:
This letter is in response to your correspondence to me on
behalf of your constituent, Mr. xxxxxxx x. xxxx. According to
the documents enclosed with your letter, Mr. xxxx has brought a
state court case appealing the denial of his application for a
variance from a zoning requirement enforced by a local permitting
authority.
Our inquiry into the circumstances reveals that, in
consideration of flood danger, the zoning requirement prescribes
a particular elevation for a dwelling Mr. xxxx is remodeling on
beachfront property. Apparently, the local zoning officials
denied the request for a variance based on regulations issued by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its authority
relating to safety and insurance. The elevation requirement
poses difficulties for Mr. xxxx, who uses a wheelchair, and he
asserts that because he is an individual with a disability, under
the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), he should be granted a variance from the local zoning
ordinance in order to build on ground level.
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in the programs, services, and activities of state and
local government entities. Title II requires public entities to
make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and
procedures, including their zoning policies, practices, and
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to ensure that
individuals with disabilities are not subjected to discrimination
because of their disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7). In the
appropriate circumstances, granting a variance to a zoning
regulation can constitute a reasonable modification required
under Title II. However, a modification need not be made if the
public entity can demonstrate that making the modification would
fundamentally alter the nature of the program, or cause an undue
burden. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3).
Zoning restrictions are also covered by the Fair Housing
Act, which provides that it is a discriminatory practice to
refuse to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies,
practices, or services when such accommodation may be necessary
to afford an individual with a disability equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(b).
While Title II and the Fair Housing Act require reasonable
modification of zoning ordinances and procedures, they do not
provide a broad exemption from zoning requirements for
individuals with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities
must generally comply with their local zoning requirements just
as non-disabled individuals must comply. When a particular
aspect of a zoning ordinance is alleged to be discriminatory,
determination of what constitutes a reasonable modification of
that aspect is highly fact-specific, requiring a case-by-case
analysis. Crowder v. Kitigawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir.
1996). An inquiry into reasonable modification in the case of
your constituent would most likely necessitate findings of fact
regarding the nature of the safety and insurance concerns
addressed by the FEMA regulation and local ordinance, including
the nature of the risks underlying the elevation requirement; the
extent of risk posed by granting a variance; and the probability
that harm would occur in the event that a variance was granted.
The Department of Justice does not intervene in state court
actions implicating the ADA. Nor can the Department override a
state court's judicial decision regarding an individual's case in
a state judicial proceeding or serve as a reviewer of the
judicial decisions of courts in individual cases. Although
discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA
may be a basis for challenging a court's decision, that challenge
must be made through the applicable appeals procedure, including
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Department's policy in this regard is based on federal
judicial decisions, including U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
making clear that judicial determinations by state courts can
only be reviewed through the state appellate process and by the
U.S. Supreme Court. See, e.g., District of Columbia Ct. Of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1982); Campbell v.
Greisberger, 80 F.3d 703, 706-07 (2d Cir. 1996) (federal court
has no jurisdiction to hear ADA-based challenge to a state court
decision). These cases make clear that ADA challenges to state
court decisions must be made through the state appellate process.
I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to
your constituent. Please do not hesitate to contact the
Department if we can be of assistance in other matters.
Sincerely,
Bill Lann Lee
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Updated 2008-07-25