Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
ArgueDateA=February 19
ArgueDateB=20
ArgueYear=1974
DecideDate=April 1
DecideYear=1974
FullName=Village of Belle Terre, et al., v. Bruce Boraas, et al.
Citation=94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797, 6 ERC 1417
USVol=416
USPage=1
Prior=Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding=The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones limiting the number of unrelated individuals that may inhabit a dwelling.
SCOTUS=1972-1975
Majority=Douglas
Dissent=Brennan
Dissent2=Marshall

"Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas", ussc|416|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.

Parties

;Plaintiffs/Appellees:The Dickmans; Bruce Boraas; Michael Truman; Anne Parish.;Defendants/Appellants:Village of Belle Terre, New York

Background

tate of law

A zoning ordinance of the Village of Belle Terre restricted land use to one-family dwellings excluding lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, or multiple-dwelling houses. The ordinance defined family as:

[o] ne or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides damages, and in some cases injunctive relief, to persons deprived of rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution or federal law by another person or entity acting under the color of law.

Facts of case

Appellees Dickmans leased house in December 1971 to Michael Truman, Bruce Boraas, Anne Parish, and other students at nearby State University at Stony Brook. The Village of Belle Terre served the Dickmans with an "Order to Remedy Violation."

Prior history

Appellees Dickmans 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 reversed.

Procedural posture

Appellant Village of Terre Belle sought reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment and reinstatement of the district court judgment.

Legal analysis

Issue

Whether the Belle Terre ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the use of land.

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 no 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.

In particular, the majority opinion cited the recent case Palo Alto Tenants Union v. Morgan, a 1973 federal decision upholding density limits in zoning.

Rule of law

The police power is a valid basis for establishing residential zones limiting the number of unrelated individuals that may inhabit a dwelling.

Holding

The Belle Terre ordinance does not constitute an unconstitutional restriction on the use of land.

Reasoning

(1) Because there is no protected class discrimination, and no fundamental right infringed by the ordinance, the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. (2) Determining what constitutes a family is the proper role of the legislature, not the judiciary, as long as there exists a rational basis for the legislature's determination. (3) The ordinance does not restrict the freedom of association, as homeowners may entertain whomever it wants. (4) The city has a rational basis for its prohibition on housing large numbers of unrelated individuals because such individuals generate more traffic, cars, and noise than a family.

Notable concurring and dissenting opinions

; Marshall, J., dissenting : (1) Because the ordinance infringes the fundamental rights of association and privacy, the proper standard of review is strict scrutiny. (2) 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." (3) The right to establish a home is an essential part of liberty protected by the due process clause. The choice of companions is essential to this right. (4) The city's attempt to maintain a residential character cannot justify these particular ordinances, which are not necessary conducive to the ends sought (the ordinance is underinclusive). (5) The ordinance is not narrowly tailored to the ends sought (the ordinance is overinclusive).

: "It is inconceivable to me that we would allow the exercise of the zoning power [established in a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Euclid v. Ambler Realty] to 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."

Result

Judgment/disposition

Court of Appeals judgment reversed.

Legacy and other notes

Unknown.

External links

* [http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./416/1/ Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)] (opinion full text).