Appellant
Inez Moore
Appellee
City of East Cleveland, Ohio
Appellant's Claim
Moore claimed that the city of East Cleveland's housing ordinance, limiting the occupancy of a housing unit to a single family, violated her rights to dueprocess and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by the ordinance's narrow definition of "family."
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Edward R. Stege, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Leonard Young
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 May 1977
Decision
The Court ruled in favor of Inez Moore, finding that the East Cleveland Housing Ordinance violated her constitutional rights. They determined that the housing ordinance was arbitrary and did not meet the goals of preventing overcrowded housing units, minimizing traffic congestion and parking problems, and reducing the financial burden on the local school system.
Significance
While unable to reach a unified opinion, the Court held that the ordinance arbitrarily regulated the family without justifying or satisfying the goals established by the ordinance. The Court determined that the protection of the "sanctity of the family" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution extended beyond the nuclear family (consisting of a married couple and dependent children) to the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members).
Sanctity of the Family
Inez Moore lived with her unmarried son, Dale Moore, and two grandsons, Dale,Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John Moore, Jr. joined her household after the death of his mother, and Moore became the primary caregiver of the child. They resided in a single-family housing unit within the community of East Cleveland,Ohio.
An East Cleveland city housing ordinance restricted the occupancy of housingunits to the members of a single family. This ordinance narrowly and definitively limited the categories of family relationships that could make up the housekeeping unit. Legal family members included the head of household; dependent, unmarried children; and parents of the head of household. The ordinance also provided a variance clause allowing non-traditional family units to ask for and be granted an exception to the definition, permitting family members not included in the categorization to legally live within the dwelling.
In 1973 the city of East Cleveland cited Moore with a violation of the city housing ordinance and instructed her to place John in another home. The childwas considered an illegal resident of the dwelling. Upon failing to comply with the ordinance, Moore was charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense, which carried a fine of $25 and a sentence of five days in jail. She filed to have her case dismissed, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Her motion for dismissal was overruled. The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the criminal charges, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied her a review.
Moore v. East Cleveland came before the U.S. Supreme Court in Novemberof 1976. The claims of this case were that the housing ordinance violated Moore's right to due process and denied her the right to equal protection of the law. The East Cleveland city housing ordinance denied Moore the freedom tomake a choice regarding where and with whom her young grandson could live. East Cleveland made a distinct decision about the categories of relatives who may live together, and the city made the personal choice of Moore prosecutableon the grounds that the ordinance was serving the public good and protectingthe city's quality of life.
In making their decision, the justices examined the definition of "family." In effect, they had to determine what constitutes a family and if there is a difference in the protection of the nuclear family versus the extended family.Justice Powell, announcing the decision of the Court, relied upon the history and tradition of the family in American society and the protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Throughout the history of the United States it has been common for the extended family of close relatives and family friends to come together as a single unit, participatingin the activities and duties of raising children and caring for the elderly or disabled. As waves of immigrants arrived in the United States, they joinedrelatives and shared common households. Powell stated in the Court's opinion,
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution recognizes the freedom of personal choices in marrying, raising a family, and other matters of private family life. Powell suggested that the sanctity of an extended family that made the choice to support one another is no less than that of the nuclear family. The determination was made by the majority justices that Moore's extendedfamily was entitled to the same and equal protection as other more traditional families under the Constitution. The choice to raise her grandson within her home was a private family matter into which the city and state could not interfere without having a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or general welfare.
It was on these grounds that the Court declared the East Cleveland housing ordinance unconstitutional. The justices found that the ordinance intruded uponMoore's decision to raise her grandson within her household in an arbitrarymanner and without serving a public good. By denying her the right to raise the child in the manner that she saw fit and prosecuting her, the city and state intruded upon her basic liberties as granted by the U.S. Constitution. Thejustices saw this violation of rights as "a taking of property without due process and without just compensation" because Moore would be required to moveout of her home and into another neighborhood where she would not be in violation of the East Cleveland ordinance if she chose to keep John Moore, Jr., in her home.
The Dissenting Opinions
Justices Burger, Rehnquist, Stewart, and White entered dissenting opinions onthe case; their opinions did not concur. Chief Justice Burger expressed theopinion that Moore, while certainly having a right to examine the constitutionality of the ordinance, should have sought an administrative resolution to her case before having it brought before the Supreme Court. He indicated thatMoore deliberately circumvented the variance clause of the housing ordinance,and, instead, chose to seek relief from a higher court. The housing ordinance made provisions for citizens to directly appeal to the city of East Cleveland for exceptions to the definition of legal housing residents. Burger believed that Moore negated her right to higher appeals by not following the appropriate actions to attempt to resolve her problem locally.
Justice Stewart, entering an opinion on behalf of himself and Rehnquist, suggested that the East Cleveland housing ordinance did not violate the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The city of East Cleveland was making anhonest effort to promote public health, safety, and general welfare throughlimitations on who and what constituted a single family. Both Stewart and Rehnquist agreed that "extended" family did not equate to the fundamental decisions protected by the U.S. Constitution such as the right to marry, the rightto bear and raise children, and the right to provide children with a privateeducation. They determined that the housing ordinance did not interfere withthese very basic rights.
Finally, Justice White entered an opinion that the East Cleveland housing ordinance did not violate the Due Process Clause. The ordinance served the veryreal need of East Cleveland to protect its citizens, and the city had a rational justification for the zoning limitations. He stated that the Court couldnot and should not interfere with a state or local governmental decision because it appears arbitrary or unreasonable unless there is a "deprivation of life, liberty, or property." His argument was that Moore was supporting two families in a single-family dwelling, and by doing so was in direct violation ofa city ordinance. She was not deprived of any freedoms by the ordinance; shecould move to another part of the Cleveland metropolitan area and raise thechildren in a single home without being in violation of any housing ordinance.
Impact
The decision by the Supreme Court that the East Cleveland housing ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution called the definition of family under strict scrutiny. The Court was required to examine what elements made up a family and whether an extended family had the same rights ofprotection afforded to nuclear families. It was determined in Moore v. East Cleveland that a family regardless of its categories of relations wasprotected by the right to privacy, the right to due process, and the right toequal protection. A state or local government did not have the right to arbitrarily define what elements could make up a family unless the definition directly supported the objectives of public health, safety, and general welfareof the community.
Related Cases
Inez Moore
Appellee
City of East Cleveland, Ohio
Appellant's Claim
Moore claimed that the city of East Cleveland's housing ordinance, limiting the occupancy of a housing unit to a single family, violated her rights to dueprocess and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by the ordinance's narrow definition of "family."
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Edward R. Stege, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Leonard Young
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 May 1977
Decision
The Court ruled in favor of Inez Moore, finding that the East Cleveland Housing Ordinance violated her constitutional rights. They determined that the housing ordinance was arbitrary and did not meet the goals of preventing overcrowded housing units, minimizing traffic congestion and parking problems, and reducing the financial burden on the local school system.
Significance
While unable to reach a unified opinion, the Court held that the ordinance arbitrarily regulated the family without justifying or satisfying the goals established by the ordinance. The Court determined that the protection of the "sanctity of the family" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution extended beyond the nuclear family (consisting of a married couple and dependent children) to the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members).
Sanctity of the Family
Inez Moore lived with her unmarried son, Dale Moore, and two grandsons, Dale,Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John Moore, Jr. joined her household after the death of his mother, and Moore became the primary caregiver of the child. They resided in a single-family housing unit within the community of East Cleveland,Ohio.
An East Cleveland city housing ordinance restricted the occupancy of housingunits to the members of a single family. This ordinance narrowly and definitively limited the categories of family relationships that could make up the housekeeping unit. Legal family members included the head of household; dependent, unmarried children; and parents of the head of household. The ordinance also provided a variance clause allowing non-traditional family units to ask for and be granted an exception to the definition, permitting family members not included in the categorization to legally live within the dwelling.
In 1973 the city of East Cleveland cited Moore with a violation of the city housing ordinance and instructed her to place John in another home. The childwas considered an illegal resident of the dwelling. Upon failing to comply with the ordinance, Moore was charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense, which carried a fine of $25 and a sentence of five days in jail. She filed to have her case dismissed, claiming that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Her motion for dismissal was overruled. The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the criminal charges, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied her a review.
Moore v. East Cleveland came before the U.S. Supreme Court in Novemberof 1976. The claims of this case were that the housing ordinance violated Moore's right to due process and denied her the right to equal protection of the law. The East Cleveland city housing ordinance denied Moore the freedom tomake a choice regarding where and with whom her young grandson could live. East Cleveland made a distinct decision about the categories of relatives who may live together, and the city made the personal choice of Moore prosecutableon the grounds that the ordinance was serving the public good and protectingthe city's quality of life.
In making their decision, the justices examined the definition of "family." In effect, they had to determine what constitutes a family and if there is a difference in the protection of the nuclear family versus the extended family.Justice Powell, announcing the decision of the Court, relied upon the history and tradition of the family in American society and the protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Throughout the history of the United States it has been common for the extended family of close relatives and family friends to come together as a single unit, participatingin the activities and duties of raising children and caring for the elderly or disabled. As waves of immigrants arrived in the United States, they joinedrelatives and shared common households. Powell stated in the Court's opinion,
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bondsuniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution recognizes the freedom of personal choices in marrying, raising a family, and other matters of private family life. Powell suggested that the sanctity of an extended family that made the choice to support one another is no less than that of the nuclear family. The determination was made by the majority justices that Moore's extendedfamily was entitled to the same and equal protection as other more traditional families under the Constitution. The choice to raise her grandson within her home was a private family matter into which the city and state could not interfere without having a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or general welfare.
It was on these grounds that the Court declared the East Cleveland housing ordinance unconstitutional. The justices found that the ordinance intruded uponMoore's decision to raise her grandson within her household in an arbitrarymanner and without serving a public good. By denying her the right to raise the child in the manner that she saw fit and prosecuting her, the city and state intruded upon her basic liberties as granted by the U.S. Constitution. Thejustices saw this violation of rights as "a taking of property without due process and without just compensation" because Moore would be required to moveout of her home and into another neighborhood where she would not be in violation of the East Cleveland ordinance if she chose to keep John Moore, Jr., in her home.
The Dissenting Opinions
Justices Burger, Rehnquist, Stewart, and White entered dissenting opinions onthe case; their opinions did not concur. Chief Justice Burger expressed theopinion that Moore, while certainly having a right to examine the constitutionality of the ordinance, should have sought an administrative resolution to her case before having it brought before the Supreme Court. He indicated thatMoore deliberately circumvented the variance clause of the housing ordinance,and, instead, chose to seek relief from a higher court. The housing ordinance made provisions for citizens to directly appeal to the city of East Cleveland for exceptions to the definition of legal housing residents. Burger believed that Moore negated her right to higher appeals by not following the appropriate actions to attempt to resolve her problem locally.
Justice Stewart, entering an opinion on behalf of himself and Rehnquist, suggested that the East Cleveland housing ordinance did not violate the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The city of East Cleveland was making anhonest effort to promote public health, safety, and general welfare throughlimitations on who and what constituted a single family. Both Stewart and Rehnquist agreed that "extended" family did not equate to the fundamental decisions protected by the U.S. Constitution such as the right to marry, the rightto bear and raise children, and the right to provide children with a privateeducation. They determined that the housing ordinance did not interfere withthese very basic rights.
Finally, Justice White entered an opinion that the East Cleveland housing ordinance did not violate the Due Process Clause. The ordinance served the veryreal need of East Cleveland to protect its citizens, and the city had a rational justification for the zoning limitations. He stated that the Court couldnot and should not interfere with a state or local governmental decision because it appears arbitrary or unreasonable unless there is a "deprivation of life, liberty, or property." His argument was that Moore was supporting two families in a single-family dwelling, and by doing so was in direct violation ofa city ordinance. She was not deprived of any freedoms by the ordinance; shecould move to another part of the Cleveland metropolitan area and raise thechildren in a single home without being in violation of any housing ordinance.
Impact
The decision by the Supreme Court that the East Cleveland housing ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution called the definition of family under strict scrutiny. The Court was required to examine what elements made up a family and whether an extended family had the same rights ofprotection afforded to nuclear families. It was determined in Moore v. East Cleveland that a family regardless of its categories of relations wasprotected by the right to privacy, the right to due process, and the right toequal protection. A state or local government did not have the right to arbitrarily define what elements could make up a family unless the definition directly supported the objectives of public health, safety, and general welfareof the community.
Related Cases
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 116 (1923).
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
- Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
- Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961).
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…