Background
Unhoused veterans with serious mental illnesses or traumatic brain injuries brought a class action concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs’ West Los Angeles campus. They alleged that the VA’s failure to provide sufficient permanent supportive housing on or near the campus denied them meaningful access to healthcare and placed them at risk of institutionalization, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
After a bench trial, the district court ordered the VA to develop and carry out a plan that included 1,800 additional permanent supportive-housing units and 750 temporary units. A Ninth Circuit panel subsequently affirmed the judgment and injunction against the VA in relevant part, while reversing or vacating other portions of the district court’s decision. The appellants petitioned for rehearing en banc.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The three-judge panel unanimously voted against rehearing, and after a judge requested a vote of the active, nonrecused judges, the case failed to receive the majority required for en banc consideration. Judges Gould and Rawlinson did not participate.
The denial leaves the panel’s prior decision in place. The court stated that no further rehearing petitions would be entertained. Judges Collins and Bumatay filed separate dissents from the denial, criticizing the panel’s Rehabilitation Act analysis, the implied right of action underlying the claims, and the class-certification ruling, but those dissents did not alter the court’s disposition.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, leaving the panel opinion and its relevant approval of the VA housing injunction intact.
- The order itself did not reconsider the merits of the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims or modify the relief previously upheld by the panel.
- The dissents argued that the injunction improperly expanded the VA’s healthcare program and that the certified class lacked commonality, but those views did not command a majority of the active, nonrecused court.
Why It Matters
The denial preserves a significant application of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to the relationship between supportive housing and meaningful access to VA healthcare for veterans with serious disabilities. It also allows an unusually broad housing-construction injunction against a federal agency to remain operative following appellate review.
The dissents identify issues that may draw further attention, including whether § 504 authorizes the asserted cause of action, when an accommodation becomes a fundamental alteration of a federal program, and how Rule 23 commonality applies when class members’ healthcare, housing, and institutionalization risks vary.