In the case of Randall Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights, 1997, Ricci sued the village under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act after they denied his application to operate a group home for mentally disabled individuals in a single-family residential district. The Supreme Court ruled that Ricci failed to demonstrate that he was discriminated against due to disability since anyone wishing to establish such a facility would have been subject to similar zoning restrictions regardless of whether its residents were disabled or not. Furthermore, it was found that these zoning laws did not disproportionately impact people with disabilities as they applied equally across all potential uses within this zone. Therefore, there wasn't any violation under ADA or Rehabilitation Act by denying his application based on existing zoning regulations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Randall Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights argued that the majority's decision to uphold a zoning ordinance, which effectively prohibited group homes for mentally disabled individuals from operating within certain residential areas, was discriminatory and violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). The dissent contended that this ruling failed to recognize how such ordinances perpetuate segregation and discrimination against people with disabilities. They believed that these restrictions were not based on legitimate safety concerns or other valid governmental interests but rather stemmed from unfounded stereotypes and fears about mental disability. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of FHAA’s “reasonable accommodation” provision, arguing it should be construed more broadly to require municipalities like Arlington Heights to modify their zoning laws if necessary to afford people with disabilities an equal opportunity for housing.