City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
City of Cleburne v.; Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 1985; Decided April 23, 1985
Full case name	City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. v. Cleburne Living Center, et al.
Citations	473 U.S. 432 ( more ) 105 S. Ct. 3249; 87 L. Ed. 2d 313
Holding
	Possessing an intellectual disability is not a quasi-suspect classification calling for a heightened level of scrutiny, but nevertheless, the requirement of a special use permit for a proposed group home for people with intellectual disabilities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because no rational basis for the discriminatory classification could be shown, and in the absence of such justification, the classification appeared to be based on irrational prejudice against the intellectually disabled.
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White ; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun ; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist ; John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Concurrence	Stevens, joined by Burger
Concur/dissent	Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Last updated August 04, 2023

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled.

In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for intellectually disabled people. The city of Cleburne, Texas refused to grant CLC a permit on the basis of a municipal zoning ordinance. CLC then sued the City of Cleburne on the theory that the denial of the permit violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights of CLC and their potential residents.

Applying rational basis review, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as applied to CLC. The Court declined to rule that intellectually disabled people were a quasi-suspect or suspect class.

Background

In July 1980, Jan Hannah purchased a building at 201 Featherston Street, within the city limits of Cleburne, with the intent of leasing it to CLC so that they could operate it as a group home for intellectually disabled people. The home was intended to house a total of thirteen mentally disabled men and women. CLC staff would supervise the residents at all times. The house itself had four bedrooms and two baths, with another half bath to be added.

The city of Cleburne informed CLC that a special use permit would be required for a group home such as this, and so CLC submitted the permit application. The city's zoning regulations required that a special use permit, renewable annually, was required for the construction of "[hospitals] for the insane or feeble-minded, or alcoholics or drug addicts, or penal or correctional institutions" (436). The city had classified the group home as a "hospital for the feebly minded" (437). The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, and CLC's Hannah, Bobbie Northrop, and David Southern moved their request to the City Council.^[1]

The city of Cleburne held a public hearing on the meeting, after which they denied the special use permit to CLC on a vote of 3 to 1.

Case history

After their special use permit was denied CLC filed suit in Federal District Court against the city, alleging that the zoning ordinance was invalid on its face and as applied because it discriminated against intellectually disabled people in violation of the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents. The Federal District Court found that if the potential residents of CLC's group home had not been intellectually disabled the permit would have been granted. However, they upheld the city's ordinance and actions as constitutional. The District Court held that intellectually disabled people were neither a suspect nor a quasi-suspect class and therefore the rational basis test should be applied. The court held that the ordinance was rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in "the legal responsibility of CLC and its residents, . . . the safety and fears of residents in the adjoining neighborhood," and the number of people to be housed in the home.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. The Court of Appeals held that an intellectual disability was a quasi-suspect class and therefore intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the ordinance. Applying the heightened scrutiny standard to the ordinance, the court held it was unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The city appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Supreme Court opinion

Justice White's majority opinion invalidated the ordinance as applied to CLC, holding that the denial of the permit was based on irrational prejudice against intellectually disabled people and hence was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Unlike most cases where the Court uses rational basis review, the Court did not accept the city's claimed interest. Some commentators have referred to this investigation into the actual reasons for passing the law as "rational basis with bite".^[2]

The Court declined to grant intellectually disabled people status as a suspect or quasi-suspect class because they are a "large and diversified group" amply protected by state and federal legislatures. Therefore, any legislation that distinguishes between intellectually disabled people and others must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest in order to withstand equal protection review. This is also known as rational basis review and is the lowest level of review under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Marshall, dissenting in part and concurring in the result of invalidating the statute, argued that due to the history of discrimination against intellectually disabled people, the Court should employ a higher standard of scrutiny (see Equal Protection scrutiny) when examining laws that regulated those with mental disabilities.

Significance

Although the Supreme Court declined to classify those with mental disabilities as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the decision is one of the few instances in which the Supreme Court has held government legislation to be unconstitutional when it applied a rational basis level of review. Another example of the Supreme Court holding that government legislation was unconstitutional when it applied to rational basis level of review was the landmark gay-rights decision in Romer v. Evans .

Related Research Articles

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), is a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling that held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilization of criminals are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The relevant Oklahoma law applied to "habitual criminals" but excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex. Frontiero is an important decision in several respects, including the fact that it informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, allowances and general treatment, women must be considered on an equal plane as men. However, the Court did not issue a broad decision requiring the military to prove in the courts its reasons for excluding women from combat positions.

Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. In Reed v. Reed the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited differential treatment based on sex.

In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, whether real or hypothetical. The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny is applied where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated. In U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate courts. When courts engage in rational basis review, only the most egregious enactments, those not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, are overturned.

Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance and helped establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ruled that the East Cleveland zoning ordinance violated substantive due process because it intruded too far upon the "sanctity of the family." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon the Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit." Scholars have recognized Moore as one of several Supreme Court decisions that established "a constitutional right to family integrity."

Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Article also identifies four forbidden classifications – religion, race, descent and place of birth – upon which Singapore citizens may not be discriminated for specific reasons. For example, discrimination on those classifications is prohibited in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Massachusetts law setting a mandatory retirement age of 50 for police officers was Constitutionally permissible.

Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to municipal parking restrictions. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that a residential zoned parking system requiring permits for daytime parking in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood of Arlington County, Virginia, with those permits limited to residents, their guests and those who came to their homes for business purposes had a rational basis and was thus constitutional. Its decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court.

References

↑ https://www.ancorfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/200509links.pdf ^{[ bare URL PDF ]}
↑ See Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal 62: 779. ISSN 0019-6665.; Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN 0040-4411.

External links

Text of City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432(1985) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] ttps://www.ancorfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/200509links.pdf ^{[ bare URL PDF ]}

[2] See Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal 62: 779. ISSN 0019-6665.; Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN 0040-4411.

[1]

[2]