Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Devt. Corp.
ArgueDate=October 13
ArgueYear=1976
DecideDate=January 11
DecideYear=1977
FullName=Village of Arlington Heights, et al. v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, et al.
USVol=429
USPage=252
Citation=97 S.Ct. 555; 50 L.Ed. 450
Prior=373 F.Supp. 208; [http://openjurist.org/517/f2d/409/metropolitan-housing-development-corporation-v-village-of-arlington-heights-d 517 F.2d 409]
Subsequent= [http://openjurist.org/616/f2d/1006/metropolitan-housing-development-corp-v-village-of-arlington-heights 616 F.2d 1006]
Holding=Zoning ordinance did not violate 14th amendment based on application of Disparate Impact/Purposeful Discrimination test.
SCOTUS=1975-1981
Majority=Powell
JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
Concurrence/Dissent=Marshall
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Brennan
Dissent=White
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. Amend. XIV

"Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp", 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional.

History

A zoning ordinance in a Chicago suburb barred the construction of a multi-family housing facility (i.e. apartment complex) in the center of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was zoned for single family dwellings without variance since 1959.

Ruling

Rather than applying the "Strict Scrutiny Test" for official conduct that on its face is based on a suspect classification, the court applied a "Disparate Impact Test" to determine whether the ordinance was actually based on a discriminatory intent which in turn would determine the constitutionality of the ordinance since the ordinance mentioned nothing about racial classifications. The Court stated that the challenging party has the burden of showing that 1) the official action affects a protected class in greater proportion than others, and if such is established, 2) that the official action was intended to discriminate against a suspect or protected class.

Determining the intent of the official action can be difficult (outside of rare cases where racial discrimination is obvious on the face), and the court suggested that a fact intensive balancing test considering many factors including but not limited to: 1) the historical background of decisions under the official action, particularly if unequally applied in situations involving race; 2) the specific sequences of events leading up to the decision challenged in the case; 3) departures from normal procedures in making decisions; 4) inconsistent substantive decisions, (i.e. the person met the factors under the law at bar, yet was denied his request); and 5) the legislative history where there are contemporary statements made by the governmental body who created the official action.

Holding

In applying the aforementioned test, the court upheld the ordinance. Although it may have kept minorities and other economically challenged individuals from moving into the neighborhood, all multi-family housing existed on the neighborhood borders to commercial areas, whereas here the developer wanted to place the multifamily housing units in the center of the neighborhood. Additionally, the ordinance had been in place since 1959, and had been applied the same way, allowing only multifamily housing on the border without regard to price of rent, purchase, or governmental subsidy. Furthermore, there had never been any incidences of discriminatory procedural practices because the city council had allowed a variance to the developer in the past for the same type of low income, multi-family housing. Moreover, there had been no instances of substantive departures either because since 1959, each housing proposal for multi-family complexes had been required to be built bordering commercial areas.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 429
*"Euclid v. Ambler Realty" (1926)

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Howell |first=R. C. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1978 |month= |title="Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.": Exclusionary Zoning—Constitutional Classism and Rassism |journal=Howard Law Journal |volume=21 |issue= |pages=256 |issn=00186813 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Lotero |first=Robert J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1977 |month= |title=The Village of Arlington Heights: Equal Protection in the Suburban Zone |journal=Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly |volume=4 |issue= |pages=361 |issn=00945617 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

*caselaw source
case="Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.", 429 U.S. 252 (1977)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./429/252/
justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/252/case.html
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_616/ Summary of case from OYEZ]