Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission
Headline: Court declines to review Alaska ruling, leaving in place rules that bar landlords from refusing to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples and denying a religious landlord’s challenge.
Holding: The Court declined to review Alaska’s decision, leaving the ruling that applying marital-status anti-discrimination laws to landlords does not violate the landlord’s free exercise of religion in place.
- Allows enforcement of rules barring landlords from refusing unmarried cohabiting couples.
- Religious landlords cannot rely on RFRA for an exemption in this case.
- Federal Supreme Court denied review, so the Alaska ruling remains controlling for now.
Summary
Background
A property owner in Anchorage refused to rent to any unmarried couple who intended to live together because of his sincere religious belief that such cohabitation is wrong. Local and state officials found that his policy violated laws prohibiting rental decisions based on a person’s marital status. The Alaska Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court both upheld that enforcement and rejected the landlord’s defenses, including one under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Reasoning
The key question raised was whether the State’s interest in preventing marital-status discrimination is so important that it can override a landlord’s religious objection under RFRA, which requires a strong, or “compelling,” government interest to justify a substantial burden on religion. Justice Thomas’s dissent explains that RFRA adopted this demanding test from earlier cases and argues the Alaska courts were wrong to treat preventing marital-status discrimination as a compelling interest. He compares marital-status protections to race-based protections, notes the lack of any firm national policy against marital-status discrimination, and points to Alaska laws that still treat married and unmarried people differently.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court did not take up the case, the Alaska decisions remain in force. That means landlords in Alaska who refuse to rent to unmarried cohabitants remain subject to enforcement under marital-status anti-discrimination laws, and the larger question about RFRA’s reach in such cases was left unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas wrote that the conflict among state courts and the importance of RFRA’s protection warrant review, and he would have granted review to resolve the national question.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?