The problems of group homes for the mentally ill and retarded, developmentally disabled, juvenile delinquents, alcohol and drug abusers, foster children, and the aged are emphasized. A survey of group home litigation reveals four main bases of attack; constitutional arguments based on due process, equal protection, the right of association, and the right of privacy; the argument that preemption doctrine should apply to deinstitutionalization so States may overrule local zoning; government versus proprietary functions; and private restrictive convenants. The four bases of attack revolve around two related concepts, least restrictive environment and normalization. The paper shows how these two doctrines recur in statutes, administrative regulations, and cases in the States studied. Most codes surveyed contain a patchwork of often conflicting laws which try to incorporate some degree of normalization with a large measure of laissez-faire politics. Thus, the implementation of deinstitutionalization requires a statewide policy uniformly applicable to all localities and articulated in clear and direct terms. Some courts have shown a willingness to deinstitutionalize without a mandate from the legislature, but the results have been haphazard. The paper includes 220 references.