photo by: Austin Hornbostel/Journal-World

Adam Hall, an attorney representing a group of landlords in a lawsuit against the City of Lawrence, listens as Judge Mark Simpson speaks during a hearing Monday, Aug. 21, 2023, in Douglas County District Court.

A bench trial about the City of Lawrence’s housing nondiscrimination ordinance was canceled this month, and the city and the group of landlords who sued over the protections are now seeking a resolution without a full trial.

The case centers on changes that the city made to its nondiscrimination ordinance in February 2023 that prevent renters from being discriminated against based on their source of income (including housing vouchers and other government assistance) or immigration status. In April of that year, the Landlords of Lawrence association filed the civil suit against the city aiming to prevent those changes from going into effect. At the time, the association requested a temporary injunction to halt them; that request was denied, but the suit continued.

Late last year, Judge Mark Simpson set May 1 — next Wednesday — as the date for a bench trial to decide the case. But in mid-April, the trial was canceled. Instead, both parties are now seeking a final decision from Simpson via summary judgment — a decision based on statements and evidence without the need for a full trial.

The most recent scheduling notice filed for the case on April 17 notes that the bench trial may be rescheduled if needed. It’s not clear from current case filings when there might be a ruling in the case.

The landlord group’s motion for summary judgment claims, in part, that the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague” because its definition of “source of income” sets indeterminate boundaries for whether unlawful sources of income are included. It also claims that a provision preventing “refusal to comply with the administrative requirements of a benefit, assistance or subsidy program” violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because of the requirements mandated as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Choice Voucher program.

Regarding the immigration status provision, the landlord group claims it is preempted by the U.S. Constitution and other federal statutes. The group is calling for the court to grant a permanent injunction to prevent the ordinance from being enforced against local landlords, claiming that enforcement will cause the group’s members “irreparable injury outweighing any injury to the defendant and the public.”

As for the city’s motion for summary judgment, it claims that the ordinance’s definition of “source of income” does clearly define examples of income sources with language such as “money derived from any lawful profession, occupation or activity.”

The motion also claims that neither protection is preempted by federal law because the source of income protections don’t require participation in a housing voucher program and because the city code predicates that discrimination prohibitions don’t apply when lawful immigration status is required by federal, state or city law.

The city further argues that the ordinance doesn’t violate a landlord’s rights under the Fourth Amendment because it doesn’t require participation in a housing voucher program, thus not infringing on a landlord’s privacy expectations or rights. It argues that the landlords group is not entitled to a permanent injunction because the landlords’ concerns about how the ordinance may damage their reputations or limit their ability to make their own business decisions are “wholly speculative.”