+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Due Process/Equal Protection Protection against certain government actions provided by the 14 th...

Due Process/Equal Protection Protection against certain government actions provided by the 14 th...

Date post: 02-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: wesley-gordon
View: 213 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
98
Due Process/Equal Protection Protection against certain Protection against certain government actions provided government actions provided by the 14 by the 14 th th Amendment to the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution U.S. Constitution
Transcript

Due Process/Equal Protection

Protection against certain government Protection against certain government actions provided by the 14actions provided by the 14 thth

Amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionAmendment to the U.S. Constitution

The 14th Amendment

Post Civil War Legislation

Makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States

It is the “work horse” amendment

But it is a slippery slide

The 14th Amendment is Based on States’ Rights and Responsibilities to its Citizens

Due Process of the Law

Equal Protection of the Laws

The Right to Travel

Civil Rights

To be Free From Arbitrary Decisions

Due Process

Due process is best defined in one word--fairness.Due process is best defined in one word--fairness. Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions, Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions,

statutes and case law have provided standards for statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local governments.governments.

Standards are known as due process. When a Standards are known as due process. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due processof or denied due process

Is This Fair?

Procedural Due Process

An aspect of informed consentAn aspect of informed consent An expectation that you will receive the same An expectation that you will receive the same

level of fair treatment as otherslevel of fair treatment as others An expectation that the procedure will follow An expectation that the procedure will follow

an exact chain of eventsan exact chain of events

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process is a far narrower concept Substantive due process is a far narrower concept than procedural; it is an absolute check on certain than procedural; it is an absolute check on certain governmental actions notwithstanding "the fairness of governmental actions notwithstanding "the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." A violation the procedures used to implement them." A violation of "substantive" due process occurs only where the of "substantive" due process occurs only where the government's actions in depriving a person of life, government's actions in depriving a person of life, liberty, or property are so unjust that no amount of liberty, or property are so unjust that no amount of fair procedure can rectify them. Irrationality and fair procedure can rectify them. Irrationality and arbitrariness imply a stringent standard against which arbitrariness imply a stringent standard against which state action is to be measured in assessing a state action is to be measured in assessing a substantive due process claimsubstantive due process claim

Substantive Due Process

Did you do things right?Did you do things right?

An expectation that others have the same rights as you allow for yourself

Belle Terre v Boraas

A New York village ordinance restricted land use to one-A New York village ordinance restricted land use to one-family dwellings, defining the word "family" to mean one family dwellings, defining the word "family" to mean one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or not more than two unrelated persons, living and or not more than two unrelated persons, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit and expressly excluding from the term lodging, boarding, expressly excluding from the term lodging, boarding, fraternity, or multiple-dwelling houses. After the owners of fraternity, or multiple-dwelling houses. After the owners of a house in the village, who had leased it to six unrelated a house in the village, who had leased it to six unrelated college students, were cited, this action was brought to college students, were cited, this action was brought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional as violative have the ordinance declared unconstitutional as violative of equal protection and the rights of association, travel, of equal protection and the rights of association, travel, and privacy.The District Court held the ordinance and privacy.The District Court held the ordinance constitutional, and the Court of Appeals reversed.constitutional, and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Location

Belle Terre is a village on Long Island's north Belle Terre is a village on Long Island's north shore of about 220 homes inhabited by 700 shore of about 220 homes inhabited by 700 people. Its total land area is less than one people. Its total land area is less than one square mile. It has restricted land use to one-square mile. It has restricted land use to one-family dwellings excluding lodging houses, family dwellings excluding lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, or boarding houses, fraternity houses, or multiple-dwelling houses.multiple-dwelling houses.

The “gated community” is 98 percent The “gated community” is 98 percent residential, several public buildings and residential, several public buildings and churches, a two commercial uses.churches, a two commercial uses.

Location Context

Supreme Court Analysis

The present ordinance is challenged on several The present ordinance is challenged on several grounds: that it interferes with a person's right to grounds: that it interferes with a person's right to travel; that it interferes with the right to migrate to and travel; that it interferes with the right to migrate to and settle; that it bars people who are uncongenial to the settle; that it bars people who are uncongenial to the present residents; that it expresses the social present residents; that it expresses the social preferences of the residents for groups that will be preferences of the residents for groups that will be congenial to them; that social homogeneity is not a congenial to them; that social homogeneity is not a legitimate interest of government; that the restriction legitimate interest of government; that the restriction of those whom the neighbors do not like steps on the of those whom the neighbors do not like steps on the newcomers' rights of privacy; that it is of no rightful newcomers' rights of privacy; that it is of no rightful concern to villagers whether the residents are concern to villagers whether the residents are married or unmarriedmarried or unmarried

Argument

It is said, however, that if two unmarried people can It is said, however, that if two unmarried people can constitute a "family," there is no reason why three or constitute a "family," there is no reason why three or four may not. But every line drawn by a legislature four may not. But every line drawn by a legislature leaves some out that might well have been included. leaves some out that might well have been included. That exercise of discretion, however, is a legislative, That exercise of discretion, however, is a legislative, not a judicial, function. It is said that the Belle Terre not a judicial, function. It is said that the Belle Terre ordinance reeks with an animosity to unmarried ordinance reeks with an animosity to unmarried couples who live together.6 There is no evidence to couples who live together.6 There is no evidence to support it; and the provision of the ordinance bringing support it; and the provision of the ordinance bringing within the definition of a "family" two unmarried within the definition of a "family" two unmarried people belies the charge.people belies the charge.

Decision

The regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and The regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a the like present urban problems. More people occupy a given space; more cars rather continuously pass by; given space; more cars rather continuously pass by; more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds. A more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds. A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one. The police power is not confined is a permissible one. The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.air make the area a sanctuary for people.

The Oxford House Series

The House must be democratically self-run. The House membership is responsible for all household expenses.

The House must immediately expel any member who uses alcohol or drugs, which each house must fulfill

in order to obtain and retain its Oxford House Charter.

Oxford House Promise

““There is no need to seek prior approval for There is no need to seek prior approval for leasing to an Oxford House. Oxford House, leasing to an Oxford House. Oxford House, Inc., will legally defend any claim of zoning Inc., will legally defend any claim of zoning violation made by localities still unfamiliar with violation made by localities still unfamiliar with the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act.”Act.”

Oxford House Web Site

Context

The Oxford House case deals with the Fair The Oxford House case deals with the Fair Housing Act and reasonable accommodation. Housing Act and reasonable accommodation. However, the real meaning of the case is However, the real meaning of the case is about due process and the actions of Oxford about due process and the actions of Oxford House and the City of Universal City, MOHouse and the City of Universal City, MO

The Concept – Congregate Housing Oxford Houses are a nationwide network of Oxford Houses are a nationwide network of

self-governing, transitional residences where self-governing, transitional residences where recovering alcoholics and drug addicts can recovering alcoholics and drug addicts can live in a supportive group setting. Oxford live in a supportive group setting. Oxford House locates its group homes in residential House locates its group homes in residential neighborhoods. Residents seek jobs in the neighborhoods. Residents seek jobs in the community, pay for their room and board, and community, pay for their room and board, and are expelled if they relapse. To be are expelled if they relapse. To be economically viable, an Oxford House must economically viable, an Oxford House must have a minimum of eight to twelve residents.have a minimum of eight to twelve residents.

Background

Oxford House locates in Universal City, Oxford House locates in Universal City, Missouri without the necessary special permit Missouri without the necessary special permit that needs to be granted for group housingthat needs to be granted for group housing

The City uses its enforcement powers and The City uses its enforcement powers and threatens to evictthreatens to evict

City’s group home is eight persons or less City’s group home is eight persons or less and limited to a physical or mental disabilityand limited to a physical or mental disability

The Director and Residents of Oxford House

Further Actions

City amends its ordinance to permit larger City amends its ordinance to permit larger group homes with a special use permit but group homes with a special use permit but the definition still is limited to only persons the definition still is limited to only persons with a mental or physical disabilitywith a mental or physical disability

Although the City further amends its Although the City further amends its ordinance to accommodate Oxford house, ordinance to accommodate Oxford house, and drops the case, the court assigns cost to and drops the case, the court assigns cost to the City for attorney’s feethe City for attorney’s fee

Basic Decision

The Appeals Court rules for the City on the The Appeals Court rules for the City on the matter of attorney’s feesmatter of attorney’s fees

Oxford House must give the City a chance to Oxford House must give the City a chance to go through its’ regular procedures and grant go through its’ regular procedures and grant them relief.them relief.

Oxford House shot themselves in the foot. Oxford House shot themselves in the foot. They signed the lease with no intention of They signed the lease with no intention of informing the city, obtaining a permit, and informing the city, obtaining a permit, and knowingly violated the 10 person rule.knowingly violated the 10 person rule.

And, More

Oxford House filed a premature, superfluous Oxford House filed a premature, superfluous law suit in hopes of bullying the City to grant law suit in hopes of bullying the City to grant them their wishes without further review.them their wishes without further review.

Because they were the catalyst for the action, Because they were the catalyst for the action, they are not entitled to damages or feesthey are not entitled to damages or fees

However – Note – The Supreme Courts Says: In a 6-3 decision resolving a dispute over the In a 6-3 decision resolving a dispute over the

application of the Fair Housing Act, the court application of the Fair Housing Act, the court said communities may set occupancy limits, said communities may set occupancy limits, space requirements and other restrictions on space requirements and other restrictions on houses occupied by unrelated people, like houses occupied by unrelated people, like group homes, but only if they also apply to group homes, but only if they also apply to everyone else living in the area.everyone else living in the area.

Thus, the case is about fairness and justice Thus, the case is about fairness and justice between two groups between two groups

Take Home Point

A person with a disability need not be given A person with a disability need not be given more rights that the residents of the area, but more rights that the residents of the area, but they should have the same rightsthey should have the same rights

In other words, the law should work equally In other words, the law should work equally for both groupsfor both groups

City of Brookings

City of Brookings v Bradley Winker

Winker is convicted of violating a Brookings’ Winker is convicted of violating a Brookings’ ordinance that prohibits more than three ordinance that prohibits more than three unrelated individuals from living as a single unrelated individuals from living as a single family (so does Manhattan, Kansas)family (so does Manhattan, Kansas)

Winker is the landlord and owns a main floor Winker is the landlord and owns a main floor and a basement apartment. Four students and a basement apartment. Four students were living in the main floor apartmentwere living in the main floor apartment

The apartment is in a zoning district that The apartment is in a zoning district that permits two single family dwelling units per permits two single family dwelling units per structurestructure

Winker’s House – How Could You Tell Students Live Here?

Winker and the Students

The Ordinance

An individual or two or more persons related by blood An individual or two or more persons related by blood or law occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single or law occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single household entity or two or more persons related by household entity or two or more persons related by blood or law occupying a dwelling unit and living as a blood or law occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single household entity together with the number of single household entity together with the number of unrelated adults so that the family contains no more unrelated adults so that the family contains no more than three adults who are unrelated by blood or law than three adults who are unrelated by blood or law or not more than three unrelated adults occupying a or not more than three unrelated adults occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single household entity. dwelling unit and living as a single household entity.

Winkler

Winkler owns a duplex Winkler owns a duplex unit that he rents to unit that he rents to students.students.

One the duplex units One the duplex units contains five residentscontains five residents

The City’s Claim

The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate density and to preserve the property values of density and to preserve the property values of older neighborhoodsolder neighborhoods

Students are not a suspect class given Students are not a suspect class given special equal protection treatmentspecial equal protection treatment

Preserve Property Values?

Parking Density

Winker’s Claim

He claims there is no rational relationship between He claims there is no rational relationship between the classification created by the definition of "family" the classification created by the definition of "family" and the object of controlling density of populationand the object of controlling density of population

Under this ordinance, twenty male cousins could live Under this ordinance, twenty male cousins could live together, motorcycles, noise, and all, while three together, motorcycles, noise, and all, while three unrelated clerics could not. A greater example of unrelated clerics could not. A greater example of over- and under-inclusiveness we cannot imagine. over- and under-inclusiveness we cannot imagine. The ordinance indiscriminately regulates where no The ordinance indiscriminately regulates where no regulation is needed and fails to regulate where regulation is needed and fails to regulate where regulation is most needed.regulation is most needed.

Court’s Decision

Brookings is a college town that experiences Brookings is a college town that experiences many density problems in its older many density problems in its older neighborhoodsneighborhoods

A line must be drawn somewhere and the A line must be drawn somewhere and the courts feels that it is neither arbitrary nor courts feels that it is neither arbitrary nor capricious to limit the number of unrelated capricious to limit the number of unrelated individuals who may live in a designated individuals who may live in a designated single family unitsingle family unit

The ordinance is validThe ordinance is valid

Cary v Rapid City South Dakota

Jane Cary files for a Jane Cary files for a zoning change from zoning change from General Agriculture to General Agriculture to medium density medium density residentialresidential

The City approves the The City approves the rezoning, but before the rezoning, but before the protest time limit protest time limit expires, the neighbors expires, the neighbors file a petition of protestfile a petition of protest

Some Background

The City annexed the property in 1992 and The City annexed the property in 1992 and classified as “no use zone.”classified as “no use zone.”

After annexation the City placed an street After annexation the City placed an street assessment of $90,000 on Ms. Cary’s assessment of $90,000 on Ms. Cary’s property. The tax also rose from $122. to property. The tax also rose from $122. to $3,168 per year$3,168 per year

The Cary’s used the property as a horse The Cary’s used the property as a horse pasture for $150 rent per yearpasture for $150 rent per year

Things Unfold

The City, in 1994, rezones the property to The City, in 1994, rezones the property to General Agriculture use to reduce her General Agriculture use to reduce her property taxesproperty taxes

In 1995 she is ready to sell to a developer In 1995 she is ready to sell to a developer contingent on rezoning and submits the contingent on rezoning and submits the change to medium density residentialchange to medium density residential

The protest petition is filedThe protest petition is filed

The Protest Petition

45 percent of the neighbors signed the 45 percent of the neighbors signed the petition which represents 18 percent of the petition which represents 18 percent of the propertiesproperties

The Law Reads

If such [a proposed zoning] ordinance be adopted, the same shall be published and take effect as other ordinances unless the referendum be invoked, or unless a written protest be filed with the auditor or clerk, signed by at least forty percent of the owners of the lots included in any proposed district and the lands within one hundred fifty feet from any part of such proposed district measured by excluding streets and alleys. In the event such a protest be filed, the ordinance shall not become effective as to the proposed district against which the protest has been filed.

Cary’s Claim

On appeal, Cary argues the protest provision of the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide standards and guidelines for the delegation of legislative authority, nor does it contain a legislative bypass provision to remove the ultimate legislative authority and lawmaking power from the protesters.

She claims the absence of such provisions is an unlawful delegation of legislative power that results in a small number of property owners being able to prevent a landowner's use of property.

The Court Reasons That:

This not a typical "protest" statute. Normally enabling acts provide for the filing of protest petitions by a specified number of property owners within a prescribed distance of the land affected by the amendment under consideration. If sufficient protests are filed, a larger affirmative vote of the municipal legislative body than normally needed to enact an ordinance is required to adopt the protested amendment and render the protest ineffective.

Analysis

Legislative power is vested in the legislature and this essential power may not be abdicated or delegated.

When a legislative body retains a police power, articulated standards and guidelines to limit the exercise of the police power are unnecessary.

A person's right to use his or her land for any legitimate purpose is constitutionally protected. However, The law does not permit the use of a person's property to be held hostage by the will and whims of neighboring landowners without adherence or application of any standards or guidelines. Under this law "the property holders who desire to have the authority to establish [a restriction] may do so solely for their own interests or even capriciously.

Arkenburg v Topeka

Procedural Due Process

Did you do things right?Did you do things right? Would other reasonable people have come to Would other reasonable people have come to

the same conclusion?the same conclusion? Was the decision arbitrary?Was the decision arbitrary? Was the decision based on factual Was the decision based on factual

conclusionsconclusions

The Church v Topeka

Entanglements

Background

The First Christian Church of Topeka owns an The First Christian Church of Topeka owns an tract of ground 4 blocks square bounded by West tract of ground 4 blocks square bounded by West 1818thth , Stone Ave., West 19 , Stone Ave., West 19thth and Gage Blvd. The and Gage Blvd. The property was purchased following a fire at their property was purchased following a fire at their main church in downtown Topeka. The tract is main church in downtown Topeka. The tract is zoned R-1 residential. zoned R-1 residential.

Prior to this action the church erected some Prior to this action the church erected some structures for school purposes on the tract. The structures for school purposes on the tract. The church contemplates building a new church and church contemplates building a new church and youth center. youth center.

Facts

The First Christian Church files a rezoning The First Christian Church files a rezoning request seeking a change from R-1 request seeking a change from R-1 residential to E multi-family dwelling for a residential to E multi-family dwelling for a 13 story, 145 unit high-rise Senior 13 story, 145 unit high-rise Senior Citizens' residence to be operated through Citizens' residence to be operated through a separate non-profit corporation a separate non-profit corporation controlled by the churchcontrolled by the church

1st Hearing

The Planning Commission conducted a The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing attended by approximately public hearing attended by approximately 14 persons - owners of homes in the 14 persons - owners of homes in the vicinity. The residents protested the vicinity. The residents protested the rezoning citing increased traffic and the rezoning citing increased traffic and the suitability of the structure to its suitability of the structure to its surrounding neighborhood. The Planning surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission vote 7 - 0 against the Commission vote 7 - 0 against the proposal and placed on record the proposal and placed on record the following facts: following facts:

The Findings

Conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan Conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan Conflict of an intense use in a single family Conflict of an intense use in a single family

neighborhood neighborhood Use of a parking lot for both the church and the Use of a parking lot for both the church and the

high-rise high-rise Insufficient open space to buffer the high-rise Insufficient open space to buffer the high-rise

from the neighborhood from the neighborhood Poor siting of building increases traffic Poor siting of building increases traffic Insufficient right-of-way to increase width of roadInsufficient right-of-way to increase width of road

God Is Not A Happy Camper

Amended Plan

The recommendation of the Planning Commission is sent The recommendation of the Planning Commission is sent to the governing bodies of the City and County for final to the governing bodies of the City and County for final action. The church requested a delay to file a new action. The church requested a delay to file a new application - the matter is referred back to the Planning application - the matter is referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the changed application Commission for reconsideration of the changed application

The church amends its application to a 10 story, 135 unit The church amends its application to a 10 story, 135 unit high-rise; the building footprint is moved towards the high-rise; the building footprint is moved towards the center of the tract to increase open space and decrease the center of the tract to increase open space and decrease the intrusion on the neighborhood; a r.o.w. easement is offered intrusion on the neighborhood; a r.o.w. easement is offered to the City to increase the street size. to the City to increase the street size.

Plan Profile

The Next Hearing

Notice of the amended hearing is given and at the Notice of the amended hearing is given and at the public hearing the neighboring residents again public hearing the neighboring residents again make the same objections and concerns. The make the same objections and concerns. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends Planning Commission unanimously recommends the change. This recommendation is adopted by the change. This recommendation is adopted by the governing bodies of the City and the County.the governing bodies of the City and the County.

The Neighbors File Suit

Seven neighbors join in an action before the Seven neighbors join in an action before the District Court requesting a permanent injunction District Court requesting a permanent injunction to bar the zoning change alleging that the to bar the zoning change alleging that the decision was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and decision was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. unreasonable.

There are two major contentions: There are two major contentions: The action itself is unreasonable in that the highrise will The action itself is unreasonable in that the highrise will

cause unacceptable levels of traffic and conflict with the cause unacceptable levels of traffic and conflict with the predominant single family use of the area. predominant single family use of the area.

The church should not have been allowed to amend its The church should not have been allowed to amend its application once the Planning Commission voted application once the Planning Commission voted against the proposal.against the proposal.

District Court Upholds the City

KS Supreme Court ReviewKS Supreme Court Review The Kansas Supreme Court first notes that it must be The Kansas Supreme Court first notes that it must be

understood that the GOVERNING BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO understood that the GOVERNING BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE ZONING AND RIGHT TO REFUSE TO CHANGE PRESCRIBE ZONING AND RIGHT TO REFUSE TO CHANGE ZONING. The role of the court is limited to determining the ZONING. The role of the court is limited to determining the lawfulness of the action taken and (2) the reasonableness of lawfulness of the action taken and (2) the reasonableness of such action. THERE IS a presumption that the Governing Body such action. THERE IS a presumption that the Governing Body acted reasonably and the court will not interfere with the acted reasonably and the court will not interfere with the decision unless it is clearly compelled to do so. decision unless it is clearly compelled to do so.

Court Reviews the Contentions

On examination the Court finds that the character of the On examination the Court finds that the character of the neighborhood is decidedly mixed and not overwhelmingly neighborhood is decidedly mixed and not overwhelmingly residential. Within 2 blocks of the site there is: residential. Within 2 blocks of the site there is:

Neighborhood shopping Neighborhood shopping Federal Land Bank Federal Land Bank Multiple family dwellings Multiple family dwellings Commercial printing plant Commercial printing plant Service station Service station Seabrook shopping area Seabrook shopping area Churches Churches Veterans Administration ComplexVeterans Administration Complex

Decision

The Court notes that certain residents object to The Court notes that certain residents object to building the proposed high-rise for several building the proposed high-rise for several reasons. These reasons have been considered by reasons. These reasons have been considered by the Planning Commission and they are the Planning Commission and they are insufficient to prevent the proposed rezoning. insufficient to prevent the proposed rezoning. The wishes of the neighbors are to be The wishes of the neighbors are to be considered, but zoning is not a Plebiscite of the considered, but zoning is not a Plebiscite of the neighborhood - the final considerations are to be neighborhood - the final considerations are to be judged by the benefit and harm to the overall judged by the benefit and harm to the overall community. community.

Due Regard

The very most that could be said about the matter is that it The very most that could be said about the matter is that it fairly debatable.fairly debatable.

Since the reasons for change appear rational, and the City Since the reasons for change appear rational, and the City used reasonably facts to render its final decision, the Court used reasonably facts to render its final decision, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the City.will not substitute its judgment for that of the City.

The action was reasonable, the hearing fairly conducted The action was reasonable, the hearing fairly conducted with due regard for all concerned. with due regard for all concerned.

Classic Test of Reasonableness

1.1. The hearings were fairly conducted The hearings were fairly conducted

2.2. The City considered all the pertinent facts The City considered all the pertinent facts

3.3. The application was amended to modify perceived The application was amended to modify perceived impacts to the neighborhood impacts to the neighborhood

4.4. The proposal was not out of scale with its surroundings The proposal was not out of scale with its surroundings

5.5. Traffic generation was modified by road widening Traffic generation was modified by road widening

6.6. The City's reasons for change were clearly stated The City's reasons for change were clearly stated

7.7. Plaintiffs failed to show unreasonableness in the City's Plaintiffs failed to show unreasonableness in the City's decision decision

8.8. The City is granted a presumption of reasonablenessThe City is granted a presumption of reasonableness

The 14th Amendment and Equal Protection of the Laws The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner

as others in similar conditions and circumstancesas others in similar conditions and circumstances The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality"

among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the lawslaws

The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. no discrimination in its application.

Different Levels of Scrutiny

Generally speaking, the state is only required to lay a Generally speaking, the state is only required to lay a rational basis or a legitimate state purpose for laws rational basis or a legitimate state purpose for laws and statutes that do not treat all citizens equally.and statutes that do not treat all citizens equally.

However, if a suspect classification is involved, the However, if a suspect classification is involved, the courts will demand a compelling interest test under courts will demand a compelling interest test under strict scrutinystrict scrutiny

The Suspect Classifications

Race, CreedRace, Creed Color, National OriginColor, National Origin ProcreationProcreation VotingVoting GenderGender DisabilityDisability

Other Protected Classification

Stupidity?

The Right to Own Firearms?

Right to Life?

The Bottom Line

Focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions Focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions distribute benefits and burdens among the members distribute benefits and burdens among the members of a group. of a group.

Fairness requires consistency in the way people are Fairness requires consistency in the way people are treated. treated.

Examples of what is offered as morally justifiable Examples of what is offered as morally justifiable reasons for treating people differently: need, merit, reasons for treating people differently: need, merit, effort, fault. effort, fault.

The principle states: "Treat people the same unless The principle states: "Treat people the same unless there are morally & civilly relevant differences there are morally & civilly relevant differences between them." between them."

City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center An early equal protection case dealing with group homes and An early equal protection case dealing with group homes and

persons with mental handicapspersons with mental handicaps This is an equal protection case rather than litigation under the This is an equal protection case rather than litigation under the

Americans With Disabilities Act because it occurred in early Americans With Disabilities Act because it occurred in early 1982 – before the act was passed1982 – before the act was passed

The Developmentally Disabled

Background

Cleburne Living Centers purchases a building Cleburne Living Centers purchases a building for a group home to accommodate 13 for a group home to accommodate 13 persons with a mental/physical disability persons with a mental/physical disability supervised by 2 trained adultssupervised by 2 trained adults

Cleburne City rejects the application as a Cleburne City rejects the application as a “residence” and classifies it as a “home for “residence” and classifies it as a “home for the feebleminded.” This type of facility the feebleminded.” This type of facility requires a special use permit.requires a special use permit.

Congregate Home

Facts

A special use permit in Cleburne would need to be A special use permit in Cleburne would need to be renewed each year after a review by the BZArenewed each year after a review by the BZA

At the hearing the public expressed grave concerns At the hearing the public expressed grave concerns about housing feeble-minded people in a home when about housing feeble-minded people in a home when they are free to come and gothey are free to come and go

Outcome

The BZA and the City denied the permitThe BZA and the City denied the permit The reasons given were:The reasons given were:

Overcrowding in the areaOvercrowding in the area Protest petitions from person who live within 200 feet of the Protest petitions from person who live within 200 feet of the

facilityfacility Fear of elderly residentsFear of elderly residents Located in a 500 year floodplainLocated in a 500 year floodplain Across the street from a high school (residents might be Across the street from a high school (residents might be

harassed by the students)harassed by the students)

The Trials

U.S. District Court upholds the City’s positionU.S. District Court upholds the City’s position Court of Appeals holds that mental Court of Appeals holds that mental

retardation is a “quasi suspect” classification retardation is a “quasi suspect” classification and should have required “strict scrutiny” so and should have required “strict scrutiny” so that the City would have to lay a compelling that the City would have to lay a compelling basis for its actions.basis for its actions.

The case is then passed to the U.S. Supreme The case is then passed to the U.S. Supreme CourtCourt

Supreme Court

First, the Supreme Court rejects the notion that the First, the Supreme Court rejects the notion that the City should be subject to strict scrutiny. It does not City should be subject to strict scrutiny. It does not find that mental retardation is a suspect classificationfind that mental retardation is a suspect classification

Next, the court reviewed the reasons given by the Next, the court reviewed the reasons given by the City for denying the special permit. In other words, City for denying the special permit. In other words, does the requirement for a special use permit for this does the requirement for a special use permit for this facility single out the residents for dis-equal treatment facility single out the residents for dis-equal treatment and violate their equal protection rights?and violate their equal protection rights?

Findings

The court notes that the city does not require a The court notes that the city does not require a special use permit for boarding houses, fraternities, special use permit for boarding houses, fraternities, hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, or private care hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, or private care facilities for the dying. It is true, therefore “that the facilities for the dying. It is true, therefore “that the residents of the CLC would be different, but no residents of the CLC would be different, but no weight should be given to this difference unless they weight should be given to this difference unless they would threaten the legitimate interests of the city.”would threaten the legitimate interests of the city.”

Findings

Fears of the nearby or elderly residents are Fears of the nearby or elderly residents are based on negative attitudes rather than based on negative attitudes rather than legitimate concerns and are not permissible legitimate concerns and are not permissible for different treatmentfor different treatment

A private bias toward other people may be A private bias toward other people may be beyond the reach of the law, but the law beyond the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effectcannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect

Findings

The facility may indeed be across from the high The facility may indeed be across from the high school but many of the resident may be students at school but many of the resident may be students at that schoolthat school

The facility may be in a 500 year floodplain but so is The facility may be in a 500 year floodplain but so is the high school and most of the nearby residentsthe high school and most of the nearby residents

There is no evidence to support the contention that There is no evidence to support the contention that the residents would be a treat to neighborhood safetythe residents would be a treat to neighborhood safety

Overcrowding

We are urged to believe that the ordinance is aimed at avoiding We are urged to believe that the ordinance is aimed at avoiding concentration of population and at lessening congestion of the concentration of population and at lessening congestion of the streets.streets.

These concerns obviously fail to explain why apartment houses, These concerns obviously fail to explain why apartment houses, fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals and the like, may freely fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals and the like, may freely locate in the area without a permitlocate in the area without a permit

So, too, the expressed worry about fire hazards, the serenity of So, too, the expressed worry about fire hazards, the serenity of the neighborhood, and the avoidance of danger to other the neighborhood, and the avoidance of danger to other residents fail rationally to justify singling out a home such as this residents fail rationally to justify singling out a home such as this for the special use permit, yet imposing no such restrictions on for the special use permit, yet imposing no such restrictions on the many other uses freely permitted in the neighborhood.the many other uses freely permitted in the neighborhood.

Decision

In short, the requirement for a special permit and its In short, the requirement for a special permit and its subsequent denial appears to rest on the irrational subsequent denial appears to rest on the irrational fears of the residents and the City against the fears of the residents and the City against the residents of the home. The City is ordered to issue residents of the home. The City is ordered to issue the special use permit.the special use permit.

Future Resident’s of the Cleburne Living Center

One child in 800 live births has Down’s Syndrome

Taxpayers of Weymouth Twsp v Weymouth The zoning ordinance of Weymouth Township NJ The zoning ordinance of Weymouth Township NJ

excluded all mobile homes except in one Planned excluded all mobile homes except in one Planned District where they were allowed as “affordable District where they were allowed as “affordable housing” for persons aged 52 and over.housing” for persons aged 52 and over.

The Weymouth Taxpayers Associated filed suit The Weymouth Taxpayers Associated filed suit asserting that their equal protection rights were asserting that their equal protection rights were violated in that the elderly could live in mobile homes violated in that the elderly could live in mobile homes but children or younger adults could notbut children or younger adults could not

The Trial Court

The trial court held that “age restrictions” The trial court held that “age restrictions” were beyond the power of regulatory land use were beyond the power of regulatory land use controls and violated the equal protection controls and violated the equal protection clause of the NJ constitutionclause of the NJ constitution

NJ Supreme Court

This 1975 case predates the amended Federal Fair Housing Act This 1975 case predates the amended Federal Fair Housing Act that allows exclusive housing for elderly that meets certain that allows exclusive housing for elderly that meets certain criteriacriteria

The plaintiff did not demonstrate that Weymouth Township The plaintiff did not demonstrate that Weymouth Township lacked a rational basis for enacting this particular planned lacked a rational basis for enacting this particular planned districtdistrict

The federal equal protection clause does not demand that all The federal equal protection clause does not demand that all persons be treated equally. It only requires that the dis-equal persons be treated equally. It only requires that the dis-equal treatment of similarly situated persons be rationally related to a treatment of similarly situated persons be rationally related to a justified state interestjustified state interest

Age Limits

The cutoff age for the planned district is age 52 – although this The cutoff age for the planned district is age 52 – although this seems somewhat arbitrary Justice Holmes said:seems somewhat arbitrary Justice Holmes said:

““When a legal distinction is determined, as no one doubts that it When a legal distinction is determined, as no one doubts that it may be, between night and day, childhood and maturity, or any may be, between night and day, childhood and maturity, or any other extremes, a point has to be fixed or a line has to be other extremes, a point has to be fixed or a line has to be drawn, or gradually picked out by successive decisions to mark drawn, or gradually picked out by successive decisions to mark where the change takes place. When there is no mathematical where the change takes place. When there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of any must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of any reasonable mark.”reasonable mark.”

Don’t Fool With Old Ladies

The Frozen Hose Case – Or, How Did We Get Dumped On?

Village of Willowbrook v Grace Olech• The Village installs a drainage culvert near the

Olech’s that causes flooding on the property• The Olech’s sue the Village for flood damage• In the meantime, the Village undertakes a project to

bring municipal water to the area so the residents can disconnect from water wells

• Grace pays $9,300 – her share of the project

1 8 ft

1 2 ft

T e n n e sse e Ave

6 3 4 9

6 4 0 5

He a vyVe g e ta tio n

He a vyVe g e ta tio n

Sid

ew

alk

6 3 4 8

6 4 0 6

6 4 1 4

6 4 4 0

6 4 4 6

O le ch 'sHo u se1 2 0 '

Hyd ra n t

Village o f W illowbrook v

Olech 7-8-99

Now Comes The Village

• A month later the Villages asks for a 33’ easement in addition to the payment

• The Village hoped to install a road and other public utilities

• The easement is more than twice the customary 15’ asked from everyone else in the Village

• Grace tells the Village to Take a Walk

The Plot Thickens

• The Olech’s well fails• They run a “garden hose” across the street to the

neighbor to pump water• The Village relents and accepts the 15’ easement

and begins the project in November of 1995• The hose freezes• They are without water until the project is finished –

March 1996

The Attorneys Earn Their Fees

• Grace files suit in U.S. District Court in April 1998• “Willowbrook picked on her out of sheer

vindictiveness to grant a 33’ easement when it only required 15’ from other residents. They retaliated because they were mad at me for suing them”

• The District Court dismissed the case – lack of proof of harassment by Village

The U.S. Court of Appeals

• Court of Appeals reverses finding of the District Court and found that the Village did display ILL WILL against Grace

• “If the power of the government is brought to bear on a harmless individual …. The individual ought to have a remedy in federal court”

Harmless

Harmless Indeed?Harmless Indeed?

The Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court grants review and although they did not reach the same ILL WILL conclusion, they did find for the “Widow Olech”

• “The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination – even if it is a class of one

Conclusion

• A person – a class of one – can sue for equal protection claims even if they are not a member of a protected classification

What the Village officials felt like after the decision and paying a lot of $$$$$$

The Widow Mrs. Blodwin Olech and Her Daughter Rogene

Grace Olech and her daughter after hearing about the final decision in their Supreme Court Case

The Moral Of The Story?


Recommended