Entities	Seattle (3)
Topics and Issues	Fair Chance (4) Reentry (9) Residential/Tenant Screening (81)

In August 2017, the City of Seattle passed Fair Chance Housing legislation that potentially exposes tenants to greater risk of crime in their apartments and higher rents, and exposes landlords to significant property damage, increased insurance premiums, and lower property values.  Since the law violated the U.S. Constitution, a group of landlords sued the city in late-2017 in federal court in Washington.

CDIA and PBSA filed a joint amicus to the U.S. District Court in 2018. Also filing amici were the National Apartment Association, and the National Credit Reporting Association, for the plaintiffs; and the Pioneer Human Services and Tenants Union, the Korematsu Center and the ACLU, for the city.

Following a long and complicated back and forth between the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the State Supreme Court, the federal district court, in July 2021, granted Seattle’s motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In March 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit issued an opinion. There were multiple opinions. First, we have the opinion by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (Clinton), a concurrence by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (Clinton), a partial concurrence by Judge Mark J. Bennett (Trump), and a partial concurrence and partial dissent by Judge Ronald M. Gould (Clinton). Taken together, the package of opinions is incredibly illogical. There is something in here for everyone to be unhappy about.

Recent/RelevantCase Documents:

• In 2018, CDIA and PBSA filed a joint amicus to the U.S. District Court. Also filing amici were the National Apartment Association, and the National Credit Reporting Association, for the plaintiffs; and the Pioneer Human Services and Tenants Union, the Korematsu Center and the ACLU, for the city.
• GRE Downtowner Motion for leave to file amicus/amicus (5/7/20)
• Seattle’s reply to GRE Downtowner’s motion for leave to file an amicus (5/22/20)
• U.S. District Court order denying  GRE Downtowner’s motion for leave to file amicus (6/9/20)
• U.S. District Court’s order granting summary judgment to Seattle and denying summary judgment to the plaintiffs (7/6/21)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, case page
• Plaintiff/Appellant Opening Brief (10/29/21)
• Plaintiff/Appellant Excerpts of the Record (10/21/21)
• CDIA/PBSA amicus (11/5/21). CDIA and PBSA argue that tenant screening providers serve an important public interest by offering what tenants demand and the law often requires safe places to live. Tenant screening reports assist housing providers in fulfilling their duty to provide safe housing for their tenants and their guests, as well as safe workplaces for their employees. The District Court erred in finding that inquiries into a consumer’s prior criminal record are purely commercial speech subject to mere rational basis judicial scrutiny, and in finding that the City had satisfied its burden to justify the Ordinance’s infringement upon Appellants’ Constitutional rights. As such, this Court should reverse the decision of the District Court below and find the Ordinance unconstitutional.
• CATO amicus (11/5/21)
• GRE Downtowner amicus (11/5/21)
• Seattle’s Answering Brief (1/28/2022)
• Seattle’s Supplemental Excerpts of the Record (1/28/2022)
• Amicus of the Int’l. Municipal Lawyers Assn., and the City and County of San Francisco (2/4/2022)
• Amicus of the National Housing Law Project, Shriver Center On Poverty Law, Tenant Law Center, Formerly Incarcerated & Convicted People And Families Movement, and Just Cities Institute are nonprofit organizations (2/4/2022)
• Amicus of the Pioneer Human Services, Tenants Union of Washington, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, ACLU of Washington (2/4/2022).
• CDIA/PBSA moved for leave to participate in the oral argument (4/7/2022). That motion was granted by the Court, which also noted that neither party’s argument time is reduced by the grant of the joint CDIA/PBSA motion (4/12/2022).
• Oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, starting at 44:30 (5/17/2022). Unofficial, automated transcription of the oral argument.
• In March 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued an opinion that reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of the City of Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which prohibits landlords from inquiring about the criminal history of current or potential tenants and from taking adverse action, such as denying tenancy, against them based on that information. The opinion was by Judge Wardlaw, with a concurrence by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, a partial concurrence by Judge Mark J. Bennett, and a partial concurrence and partial dissent by Judge Ronald M. Gould. Judges Wardlaw and Gould were appointed by Presidents Clinton. Judge Bennett was appointed by President Trump.
• In May 2023, the panel unanimously voted to deny Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc, as well as Appellants’ conditional cross-petition for rehearing en banc.
• In September 2023, the plaintiff-appellants filed a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case number is 21-35567 and the U.S. Supreme Court page for this case is online. On October 4, the petition was circulated for the October 27 conference. On October 12, the Court called for the City to provide a response to Yim’s petition.
• In November 2023, amici were filed jointly by CDIA/PBSA; the Goldwater Institute; the Manhattan Institute; GRE Downtowner; the Buckeye Institute; the Citizen Action Defense Fund; and jointly by the National Apartment Association (NAA), Washington Multi-Family Housing Association (WMFHA), and Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc. (AOAC).
• On December 15, 2023, the defendant, the City of Seattle, filed its Brief in Opposition.
• On December 28, 2023, the plaintiff, Yim, filed its reply brief.
• In January 2024, the Supreme Court denied Yim’s petition for cert. Following that denial, the landlords’ counsel Brian T. Hodges said that “the right to decide who can live on one’s property is a fundamental property right, particularly where that decision involves known and dangerous criminals,” Hodges said. “If rental property owners can’t choose tenants they believe are reliable, and don’t pose a threat to their safety or the well-being of other tenants, there can, and likely will be, harmful consequences for years to come.”