In the case of City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., et al., 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oxford House, a non-profit organization that operates group homes for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. The city of Edmonds had attempted to enforce a zoning ordinance limiting the number of unrelated individuals who could live together as a family unit to five people or less against an Oxford House home with 10-12 residents. However, the court held that this was discriminatory under federal law - specifically, under Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) which prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities including addiction recovery patients. The court also clarified that FHAA's definition does not limit occupancy restrictions solely based on familial status but includes all types such as size and other physical characteristics.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., Justice Thomas argued that the Court's interpretation of "family" in relation to zoning ordinances was too broad and inconsistent with its traditional understanding. He contended that a group home for recovering addicts did not fit within this definition as it lacked attributes typically associated with a family unit such as permanence and functional unity. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that federal law preempts local zoning laws, arguing instead that municipalities should have autonomy over their own land use regulations unless explicitly overridden by Congress. This decision, according to him, could potentially undermine local governments' ability to maintain residential character in neighborhoods.