Summary
The Ninth Circuit considered consolidated appeals arising from a class action by unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses concerning housing, healthcare access, and land-use agreements on the West Los Angeles VA Grounds. The panel affirmed the Rehabilitation Act rulings against the Department of Veterans Affairs, reversed judgment against the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rejected the charitable-trust claim, and held that certain Brentwood School and Bridgeland Resources agreements violated the West Los Angeles Leasing Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court affirmed portions of the housing-related injunction, vacated or limited other injunctive relief, dismissed UCLA's appeals as moot, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Veterans Judicial Review Act and 38 U.S.C. § 511 deprived federal courts of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying classes for the meaningful-access and Olmstead claims.
- Whether the VA denied unhoused veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injury meaningful access to VA healthcare in violation of Section 504.
- Whether the VA violated the Rehabilitation Act's integration mandate by placing class members at serious risk of institutionalization.
- Whether the VA's policy of contracting with housing developers that impose Area Median Income limits and count veterans' disability benefits as income was facially discriminatory.
- Whether plaintiffs had special-interest standing to enforce an alleged charitable trust concerning the West Los Angeles VA Grounds.
- Whether the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 and its 2021 Amendment imposed judicially enforceable fiduciary duties on the VA.
- Whether the Brentwood School lease and Bridgeland Resources revocable license violated the Leasing Act and therefore the APA.
- Whether the district court exceeded its equitable authority by prohibiting renegotiation of unlawful leases, ordering a settlement with Brentwood, and prohibiting Bridgeland from slant drilling.
Holdings
- The Veterans Judicial Review Act does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims because the claims challenge discriminatory access to already-conferred VA benefits and do not require review of individual VA benefits determinations.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying classes for the meaningful-access and Olmstead claims because the claims challenged a system-wide VA practice affecting all class members and could generate common answers.
- The VA denied class members meaningful access to VA healthcare by failing to provide supportive housing on or near the West Los Angeles VA Campus.
- The VA violated the Rehabilitation Act's integration mandate by failing to provide class members healthcare benefits in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and thereby placing them at serious risk of institutionalization.
- The VA's policy of contracting with housing developers that impose income limits and count veterans' disability benefits as income was facially discriminatory under the Rehabilitation Act.
- Unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses had a special interest sufficient to sue to enforce the alleged charitable trust concerning the VA Campus.
- The West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 and its 2021 Amendment did not impose judicially enforceable fiduciary duties on the VA; the district court therefore erred in entering judgment for plaintiffs on the charitable-trust claim.
- The Brentwood lease and Bridgeland revocable license violated the Leasing Act because their predominant purposes did not principally benefit veterans; because they were contrary to statutory authority, they also violated the APA.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the VA to construct supportive housing to remedy the Rehabilitation Act violations, but it abused its discretion by prohibiting renegotiation of unlawful leases, ordering a settlement with Brentwood, and prohibiting Bridgeland from slant drilling.
Key quotations
“In sum, because Plaintiffs are not collaterally attacking the VA’s individual benefits determinations, the VJRA does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims.” (36)
“So, too, here. Plaintiffs challenge the VA’s failure to provide permanent housing on or near the Campus, a system-wide practice that Plaintiffs claim is discriminatory and that affects all of the putative class members.” (39)
“A veteran with 100% disability rating does not qualify for most housing under this program because they receive more than 30% AMI in disability benefits, but a less disabled veteran who received less in disability benefits does. This constitutes facial discrimination.” (44)
“The district court thus erred in finding that the Leasing Act and its 2021 Amendment imposed judicially enforceable fiduciary duties on the VA.” (50)
“Thus, the land-use agreements are void unless and until renegotiated to comply with the Leasing Act.” (63)
Factual background
The West Los Angeles VA Grounds consist of land deeded to the federal government for a national home for disabled veterans. Over time, the VA shifted the campus away from housing and leased substantial portions to commercial and institutional interests, while thousands of veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injury remained unhoused in the Los Angeles area. Existing supportive housing was insufficient, and many housing developers counted veterans' service-connected disability benefits as income, disqualifying highly disabled veterans from units subject to Area Median Income limits. The district court found that the lack of supportive housing denied class members meaningful access to VA healthcare and placed them at serious risk of institutionalization, while certain campus leases principally benefited nonveterans.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued in the Central District of California under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and a charitable-trust theory. The district court denied dismissal based on the Veterans Judicial Review Act, certified classes for the meaningful-access and Olmstead claims, granted partial summary judgment, and after a bench trial entered judgment for plaintiffs on the Rehabilitation Act, charitable-trust, and APA claims. It voided several land-use agreements, ordered the VA to construct supportive housing, and entered broad injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed UCLA's consolidated appeals as moot, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must enter judgment consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. It must preserve the judgments and equitable relief affirmed for the meaningful-access, Olmstead, and AMI claims; reverse judgment on the charitable-trust claim; vacate judgment against HUD on the Rehabilitation Act claims and the APA equitable relief; dismiss UCLA's consolidated appeals as moot and vacate injunctive relief concerning UCLA's lease and services; vacate relief based on the charitable-trust theory concerning Brentwood and Bridgeland; and allow the VA to renegotiate the Brentwood and Bridgeland agreements only if they can be brought into compliance with the Leasing Act.