Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012. Facts: Roommate.com, LLC (defendant) operated a website where individuals could post information about themselves, including sex, sexual orientation, and familial status, to assist in their search for a roommate. The Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego (plaintiffs) brought suit, alleging among other things that Roommate.com’s website was discriminatory in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, sex, familial status, or national origin" with respect to the rental or sale of a "dwelling." The FHA defines "dwelling," in turn, as "any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families." Procedural History: The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that Roommate.com violated the FHA by prompting users to enter discriminatory preferences, matching users based on those preferences, and publishing the preferences. The district court enjoined Roommate.com from continuing those practices. Roommate.com appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Issue: Do the anti-dsicrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act apply to the selection of roommates? Holding: No, the selection of roommates is constitutionally protected as a right of intimate association. Reasoning: The anti-discrimination provisions of the FHA do not apply to the selection of roommates. The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in the “sale or rental of a dwelling.” Under the FHA, a "dwelling" means a living unit for family occupancy. Although the definition of "dwelling" in the FHA could be interpreted to either include or exclude shared living units, the correct interpretation of the statute is that the FHA excludes shared living units. In other words, the FHA "stop[s] . . . at the front door." In enacting the FHA, Congress intended to address discriminatory practices by landlords, and not arrangements between people who share a living space. For example, although the FHA prohibits sex discrimination, it is difficult to believe that Congress, which enacted the FHA during the 1960s, meant that women had to accept men as roommates. Moreover, under the Constitution, the right to intimate association—and, indeed, the right not to associate—is a fundamental liberty. And a relationship with a roommate is certainly an intimate one, given that roommates may share all areas of the home. Similarly, given roommates' shared access to the home, the choice in roommates has significant safety implications. Because of the nature of the roommate relationship, allowing the government to interfere with that relationship would be an invasion of privacy. Accordingly, discrimination in the selection of a roommate is not prohibited under the FHA, and Roommate.com’s website thus does not violate the FHA. The trial court's judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Roommate.com.