Lawwly

Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

179 F.3d 725 (1999)

Relevant factsFree

BAART (plaintiff) sought to relocate its methadone clinic to Antioch, California, as its zoning plan permitted, but after residents learned of the plan, the city council passed an emergency ordinance banning such clinics within 500 feet of any residential area. Unable to find an alternative site, BAART sued the city under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, seeking a permanent injunction, and moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the preliminary injunction because BAART failed to show it would be irreparably harmed, reasoning in part that a suitable alternative location might exist; BAART appealed, arguing the court should first have asked whether BAART posed a significant risk to the community before considering alternative sites.

IssueFree

Whether, if a law is facially discriminatory, courts must apply the significant-risk test in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.

Related cases