''Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas'', 416 U.S. 1 (1974), is a

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning

ordinance Ordinance may refer to: Law * Ordinance (Belgium), a law adopted by the Brussels Parliament or the Common Community Commission * Ordinance (India), a temporary law promulgated by the President of India on recommendation of the Union Cabinet * ...

that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling.

Background

A zoning ordinance in the Village of

Belle Terre Belle Terre is a village in the Town of Brookhaven in Suffolk County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York, United States. The population was 792 at the 2010 census. History The peninsula on which the community of Belle Terre is ...

New York New York most commonly refers to: * New York City, the most populous city in the United States, located in the state of New York * New York (state), a state in the northeastern United States New York may also refer to: Film and television * '' ...

restricted one-family dwellings to single family, which was defined as " e or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit" or two people unrelated by blood or marriage. The appellees leased a house zoned for single-family residential to a group of students at nearby State University at Stony Brook. The Village of Belle Terre then brought an order of eviction, claiming that the students did not constitute a family and so were excluded from that zoned area.

Prior history

The appellees sought declaratory judgment and an injunction declaring the ordinance unconstitutional. The district court held the ordinance constitutional, and the

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (in case citations, 2d Cir.) is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. Its territory comprises the states of Connecticut, New York and Vermont. The court has appellate juris ...

reversed.

Arguments/theories

The students and homeowner argued that (1) the ordinance interferes with a person's right to travel; (2) it interferes with the right to migrate to and settle within a state; (3) it bars people who are uncongenial to the present residents; (4) it expressed social preferences of the residents for groups that will be congenial to them; (5) social homogeneity is not a legitimate interest of government; (6) the restriction of those whom the neighbors do not like trenches on the newcomers' right to privacy; (7) it is not rightful concern to the villages whether the residents are married or unmarried; (8) the ordinance is antithetical to the egalitarian, open, and integrated ideology of the nation.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the Belle Terre ordinance was a constitutional restriction on the use of land. It further held that the police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones limiting the number of unrelated individuals that may inhabit a dwelling. In particular, the majority opinion cited the '' Palo Alto Tenants Union v. Morgan'', a 1973 federal decision upholding density limits in zoning. The Supreme Court held * Because there was no protected class discrimination, and no

fundamental right Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law. The United Nations' Sustai ...

infringed by the ordinance, the proper standard of review was the rational basis test. * The legislature should define a family, rather than the judiciary. As long as there exists a rational basis for the legislature's determination, it would be upheld by the courts. * The ordinance did not restrict the freedom of association, as homeowners may entertain whomever it wants and that the ordinance was only a restriction on who could permanently live in that residence. * The city had a rational basis for its prohibition on housing large numbers of unrelated individuals because creating a quiet neighborhood is a permissible state goal and this ordinance is closely related enough to this goal to be sustained under the rational basis test.

Dissenting opinions

; Justice Marshall dissented, arguing that * The ordinance infringes the fundamental rights of association and privacy and thus the proper standard of review is

strict scrutiny 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 th ...

. * Zoning officials may restrict the use of land, but may not properly restrict who the persons living on land may be, "what they believe, or how they choose to live." *The right to establish a home is an essential part of liberty protected by the

due process clause In United States constitutional law, a Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the government except as ...

. The choice of companions is essential to this right. *The city's attempt to maintain a residential character cannot justify this particular ordinance, because it allows any number of residents, as long as they are related. Thus, this ordinance was under inclusive. * The ordinance is not narrowly tailored to the ends sought and was thus over inclusive. For example, “It would...prevent three unrelated people from occupying a dwelling even if...they had...one income and no vehicles.”416 U.S. 1, 19 Justice Marshall went on to say * "It is inconceivable to me that we would allow the exercise of the zoning power Euclid v. Ambler Realty">Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.">Euclid v. Ambler Realtyto burden First Amendment freedoms, as by ordinances that restrict occupancy to individuals adhering to particular religious, political, or scientific beliefs. Zoning officials properly concern themselves with the uses of land—with, for example, the number and kind of dwellings. But zoning authorities cannot validly consider who those persons are, what they believe, or how they choose to live, whether they are Negro or white, Catholic or Jew, Republican or Democrat, married or unmarried."

References

External links

* {{US14thAmendment United States Supreme Court cases United States land use case law United States substantive due process case law United States equal protection case law 1974 in United States case law Stony Brook University United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court