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 lawsuit arguing that changes to the City of Lawrence’s nondiscrimination ordinance, which now prohibits landlords from refusing to accept rental applications based on source of income, are unconstitutional is set to continue following a ruling Monday in Douglas County District Court.

Along with preventing landlords from refusing applications from tenants who receive rental assistance such as Section 8 housing vouchers, the amended nondiscrimination ordinance approved by the Lawrence City Commission in February also makes it unlawful to discriminate based on someone’s status as a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking or stalking, and based on someone’s immigration status.

The Landlords of Lawrence association, a group of local landlords, filed a civil suit against the City of Lawrence in April aiming first to prevent the parts of the ordinance related to source of income and immigration status from going into effect via a temporary injunction. But that request was denied, meaning the changes have been able to take effect while the case remains in litigation.

Monday’s hearing was to decide on the City of Lawrence’s subsequent motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and Judge Mark Simpson ruled that motion should be denied. Litigation will continue with a case management conference on Sept. 28.


In the legal petition filed by Landlords of Lawrence’s attorney, Adam Hall, the group argues the ordinance is “unconstitutional” because it purportedly requires them to “involuntarily participate in all housing subsidy programs, including the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, by mandating that all landlords give equal consideration to rental applications of voucher-holding prospective tenants, even if a landlord’s business judgment leads them to conclude that the administrative burdens of program participation are too great.”

Additionally, the landlord group in its petition also expresses concerns about the inclusion of “immigration status” as a protected class and says it “subjects Lawrence landlords and others to federal criminal liability.” Their petition argues that under the new nondiscrimination rules, landlords could be accused of “harboring” undocumented people in a violation of federal law.

An attorney representing the City of Lawrence, Michelle Stewart, argued Monday that the court should find the group has no standing to sue, meaning the group lacks sufficient connection to and harm from the law. Stewart argued that the petition doesn’t lay out any specific injuries, but rather just seeks “declaratory relief” that the ordinance can’t be enforced.

Hall, on the other hand, said landlords are “susceptible to more damage than members of the public at large” and are “targeted” by the ordinance; their business practices are affected, he said. An amended petition that Simpson also approved at Monday’s hearing goes to the issue of standing: It includes a declaration from one of the group’s members, Billy Williams, who says while he doesn’t expressly ask tenants about their immigration status during tenant screenings, it’s a “factor (he needs) to be able to consider.”

Simpson, in his ruling, said the ordinance applies to Landlords of Lawrence, and the group would be subject to penalties if found to violate the ordinance. He also said it appears the ordinance requires landlords to change their business practices in a way that is “harmful to their businesses.”

Stewart’s other argument was that the landlord group is erroneously claiming that the ordinance preempts various legal precedents and federal laws related to voluntary participation in housing programs and immigration status. She said there’s nothing in the city’s ordinance that prevents landlords from complying with federal immigration laws, for example, which inherently doesn’t create a de facto “harbor” for the entire City of Lawrence.

Hall argued that landlords have to conduct their business in a way that’s conducive to both local and federal laws, but they’re being put in a position where they “have to choose” between one or the other due to the ordinance.

On that front, Simpson ruled that dismissing a case is usually “disfavored” at this point in the process, because it would occur before the parties can go through a period of discovery — the part of a lawsuit after its initial stages where the parties can gather information that otherwise wouldn’t be publicly known or readily available to the party seeking it — and build the evidence for their arguments in the trial.