Persida Myers, co-owner of a lot in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community in Deschutes County, bought the property in 2016 intending to convert an existing commercial structure into a licensed residential facility providing care, treatment, or training to individuals with disabilities. When she acquired the property, residential home and residential facility uses were permitted in the community neighborhood zone where the lot sits — a fact she confirmed with a county official. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2024-008, which took effect January 7, 2025, eliminated those uses from the zone. Myers sued the county and its Board of County Commissioners under the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses, and Oregon state law, and simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Judge Michael J. McShane of the District of Oregon denied the motion on April 7, 2026, finding that none of the four Winter factors favored relief.
On likelihood of success, the court found that Myers's claims under the FHA, ADA, Fourteenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Oregon statutes raise complex issues that turn on significant factual findings not yet developed through discovery. The court also noted that the county's declarant directly contested key alleged facts, explaining that neither the commercial general nor community neighborhood zones allow for residential development — a showing the court said further weakened Myers's position.
The irreparable-harm analysis proved equally fatal. Myers's own filings quantified her losses as lost net operating income accruing at approximately $48,352 per month and a trend-adjusted property value decline of $735,220 — figures the court characterized as purely economic harms recoverable through damages in the ordinary course of litigation. The court also rejected Myers's argument that the exclusion of people with disabilities from purpose-built housing constituted irreparable harm, finding that she was developing the property as an owner, not a prospective tenant, and that any harm to future residents was speculative.
On the merged public-interest and balance-of-equities inquiry, the court acknowledged that enjoining a governmental entity from enforcing its own ordinance constitutes a form of irreparable injury to that entity, while also recognizing that preventing constitutional violations is always in the public interest. Because Myers had not demonstrated a likelihood that the county violated the constitution or federal or state law, the public-interest factor did not tip in her favor. The court also declined to treat Myers's argument that an injunction would send a statewide signal to counties about implementing state law as a proper basis for preliminary relief, citing concerns about federal court intervention in state law administration.
The case, No. 6:26-cv-00555, proceeds in the Eugene Division of the District of Oregon.