photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Attorney Adam Hall argues a case to a panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals, from left, Judge David Bruns, Judge Rachel Pickering and Judge Kim Schroeder, on April 8, 2025, at Johnson County Community College.

Overland Park — A Lawrence attorney on Tuesday argued to a traveling panel of appellate judges that a Douglas County judge made a big mistake when he dismissed a lawsuit by a group of Lawrence landlords over the city’s new ordinance forbidding discrimination based on the source of income.

The landlords had wanted Douglas County District Judge Mark Simpson to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, but Simpson disagreed, leading — nearly a year later — to attorney Adam Hall’s appearance at Johnson County Community College, where a panel of three judges, based in Topeka with 11 other appellate judges, took up the case. The Lawrence case was one of two heard — but not ruled on — Tuesday in Johnson County as part of the court’s educational “mobile docket.”

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Attorney Adam Hall argues a case to a panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals on April 8, 2025, at Johnson County Community College.

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Attorney Michelle Stewart argues a case to a panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals on April 8, 2025, at Johnson County Community College.

Arguing against Hall was attorney Michelle Stewart, who asked the appeals panel to affirm Simpson’s May 2024 ruling.

The Landlords of Lawrence group sued the City of Lawrence two years ago, saying that the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” The ordinance prevents renters from being discriminated against based on their source of income — including their use of housing vouchers or other government assistance — or immigration status. Simpson ruled in the city’s favor and dismissed the landlords’ lawsuit.

“After careful consideration, the court determines that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally over broad, and that federal law does not preempt the ordinance,” Simpson wrote.

Hall asked the Court of Appeals panel — Judge David Bruns, Judge Rachel Pickering and Judge Kim Schroeder — to overturn Simpson’s decision, which they will either do or not do, likely within 60 days, but for now they just had questions for the two attorneys.

Hall told the panel, as he had previously argued to Simpson — that the city’s ordinance was too vague and violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. He said the ordinance effectively gave power to nonelected officials — city staff — to interpret the law.

Judge Bruns said the ordinance included what’s known in legal speak as “weasel words: ‘including, but not limited to,'” when it referenced the types of income allowed to be used for housing.

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Judge David Bruns of the Kansas Court of Appeals asks a question Tuesday, April 8, 2025.

Hall said it was that phrase specifically that the landlords disagreed with. Bruns asked whether if that part of the ordinance were stricken, the landlords would be satisfied with the ordinance. Hall said the omission would improve the ordinance’s standing constitutionally, but he couldn’t say if it would satisfy the law and that the ordinance should be simply be rewritten.

Hall argued that the ordinance also mandated that landlords accept Section 8 housing vouchers, which could violate the Fourth Amendment by forcing landlords to submit to property inspections to comply with the vouchers.

Stewart, arguing for the city, asked the panel to affirm Simpson’s ruling. She said that the ordinance prohibited landlords from discriminating against renters based on housing vouchers only when the vouchers were the sole reason for denying a rental agreement. She said that so long as the landlord found other legitimate reasons to deny the agreement, the ordinance would not be enforced.

Hall disagreed, saying that previous case law suggested that if a person used both legitimate and illegitimate reasons to make a decision that could be viewed as discriminatory, it is discrimination.

Concerning the immigration clause in the city’s ordinance, Hall argued that the city had no power to make laws regarding immigration enforcement. He said that landlords who feel legally obligated to rent to immigrants who are here illegally could be prosecuted for harboring them.

Bruns noted that the extent to which cities and states could make law touching on immigration status was a topic being discussed in courtrooms around the nation.

photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Rachel Pickering on April 8, 2025, at Johnson County Community College.

Pickering said that if landlords don’t know a renter’s immigration status, they cannot be held liable so long as they comply with law enforcement for any records they may have. She said immigration statuses were often fluid, especially in a place like Lawrence, where many international students live.

Hall countered that case law suggested that regardless of whether the landlords know, they could be found to be harboring an immigrant who is here illegally.

The other case the panel heard was from Johnson County and concerned jurisdictional issues over crimes that partly occurred in Missouri.

The audience Tuesday consisted of students, professionals and members of the public.