Petitioner
City of Cleburne
Respondent
Cleburne Living Center
Petitioner's Claim
That the decision to deny the Cleburne Living Center a zoning permit was constitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Earl Luna, Robert T. Miller, Jr., Mary Milford
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Renea Hicks, Diane Shisk, Caryl Oberman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1985
Decision
The denial of a permit to the Cleburne Living Center was found to be based onprejudice and therefore unconstitutional.
Significance
The case helped improve rights of the mentally retarded.
Handicapped or differently abled persons were at the center of the Supreme Court's decision in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center. In July of 1985,the High Court ruled that the city of Cleburne, Texas, violated the U.S. Constitution when it denied a zoning permit to the Cleburne Living Center (CLC).The center applied for a zoning permit for a house for the retarded. The house the center wanted to lease for the retarded was a residential group home.
The city of Cleburne classified the group home as a "hospital for the feebleminded" and told CLC they had to apply for a special use permit. CLC applied but the city denied them the special use permit. After the Cleburne City Council denied the center the permit, CLC filed suit. The suit stated that the city had violated the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents. CLC cited the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause states that no state shall "denyto any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this means is that all people in similar situations should be treated the same.
It is up to the courts to devise standards when dealing with a challenge to the Equal Protection Clause. In this case, different standards were used by different courts. In district court, the city of Cleburne won; the district court upheld its decision not to grant CLC its special use permit. CLC appealedthis decision and the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals decision, but clarified its ruling.
The district court used the "heightened-scrutiny" equal protection test in making its decision. "Heightened-scrutiny" refers to a law singling out membersof certain groups for special treatment. If groups such as racial minorities, illegitimate children, women, or aliens are singled out for particular treatment in a law, that law is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional unless the law serves either an "important" or "compelling" interest to the government.
The court of appeals, in reversing the district court's decision in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, stated that the retarded, as a group, wereentitled to "heightened scrutiny." The reasoning used by the court of appealswas that the retarded lacked political power and also had a history of beingdiscriminated against. Although all nine of the Supreme Court justices agreed that when the city of Cleburne denied the zoning permit it did so in violation of the Constitution, they disagreed on the underlying question involved.They disagreed with the lower court's reasoning but agreed with its end result.
According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court said that "mere negative attitudes, vague fear, and irrational prejudice may not form the basisfor official action placing the retarded at a disadvantage."
The Supreme Court found these factors at the center of the city of Cleburne'sdecision-a decision, it must be noted, not to permit a group home for 13 retarded citizens in an area that was already zoned for nursing homes, group homes and apartments. The Supreme Court justices even went as far as to state that not only was the city of Cleburne's decision unconstitutional, it was, theCourt said, irrational. However, the Court also said that the retarded as agroup do not have the characteristics to receive "heightened scrutiny." Justice White told the New York Times that the reasoning used by the courtof appeals to come to a decision in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centerwas incorrect. White said mental retardation is a broad phrase and decisionsabout treating the retarded are "very much a task for legislators guided byqualified professionals and not by the perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary."
Justice Marshall criticized the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. Marshallsaid that the Court "pretends" that its equal protection analysis uses a firm set of categories. He argued that the Court has adjusted the degree of justification it demands based on more sensitive calculations. By voting that thecity of Cleburne's ordinance was invalid, the Supreme Court did much for thementally retarded in general. Although mentally retarded people are different, the Court stated, the difference is irrelevant--inappropriate, unless theproposal in question threatens a city's interests in a way those granted permits would not. However, viewed as a constitutional test case by advocates forthe mentally retarded Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, when lookedat in a specific way, only sheds light on the Supreme Court's mixed message.
Related Cases
Should Facilities for Mentally Retarded Persons be Allowed in Neighborhoods?
Opening a group home for mentally disabled individuals within family neighborhoods may cause significant controversy between the organization trying to establish housing for its potential residents, and the existing neighbors.
The right to establish group homes within residential areas of a city or townis protected under the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968. This act provides greater access to housing for the disabled, and protects against discriminatory practices. Further, a group home can be viewed no differently than any other person's home. As a result, a city cannot stipulate that a group home not be located in any area deemed "residential."
Residents in neighborhoods where group homes try to locate may become alarmedby the prospect of mentally retarded persons living in their midst. In somecases, neighbors fear that the group home may lack adequate supervision for its residents. Some cite fear for the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Others believe residents suffering from psychiatric problems should be barred from group homes. Even others cite the potential effect these group homes might have on their property value.
Sources
Findlaw. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html. The Record Online, http://www.bergen.com/psouth/boardjc199807093.htm.
City of Cleburne
Respondent
Cleburne Living Center
Petitioner's Claim
That the decision to deny the Cleburne Living Center a zoning permit was constitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Earl Luna, Robert T. Miller, Jr., Mary Milford
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Renea Hicks, Diane Shisk, Caryl Oberman
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 July 1985
Decision
The denial of a permit to the Cleburne Living Center was found to be based onprejudice and therefore unconstitutional.
Significance
The case helped improve rights of the mentally retarded.
Handicapped or differently abled persons were at the center of the Supreme Court's decision in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center. In July of 1985,the High Court ruled that the city of Cleburne, Texas, violated the U.S. Constitution when it denied a zoning permit to the Cleburne Living Center (CLC).The center applied for a zoning permit for a house for the retarded. The house the center wanted to lease for the retarded was a residential group home.
The city of Cleburne classified the group home as a "hospital for the feebleminded" and told CLC they had to apply for a special use permit. CLC applied but the city denied them the special use permit. After the Cleburne City Council denied the center the permit, CLC filed suit. The suit stated that the city had violated the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents. CLC cited the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause states that no state shall "denyto any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this means is that all people in similar situations should be treated the same.
It is up to the courts to devise standards when dealing with a challenge to the Equal Protection Clause. In this case, different standards were used by different courts. In district court, the city of Cleburne won; the district court upheld its decision not to grant CLC its special use permit. CLC appealedthis decision and the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals decision, but clarified its ruling.
The district court used the "heightened-scrutiny" equal protection test in making its decision. "Heightened-scrutiny" refers to a law singling out membersof certain groups for special treatment. If groups such as racial minorities, illegitimate children, women, or aliens are singled out for particular treatment in a law, that law is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional unless the law serves either an "important" or "compelling" interest to the government.
According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court said that "mere negative attitudes, vague fear, and irrational prejudice may not form the basisfor official action placing the retarded at a disadvantage."
The Supreme Court found these factors at the center of the city of Cleburne'sdecision-a decision, it must be noted, not to permit a group home for 13 retarded citizens in an area that was already zoned for nursing homes, group homes and apartments. The Supreme Court justices even went as far as to state that not only was the city of Cleburne's decision unconstitutional, it was, theCourt said, irrational. However, the Court also said that the retarded as agroup do not have the characteristics to receive "heightened scrutiny." Justice White told the New York Times that the reasoning used by the courtof appeals to come to a decision in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centerwas incorrect. White said mental retardation is a broad phrase and decisionsabout treating the retarded are "very much a task for legislators guided byqualified professionals and not by the perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary."
Justice Marshall criticized the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. Marshallsaid that the Court "pretends" that its equal protection analysis uses a firm set of categories. He argued that the Court has adjusted the degree of justification it demands based on more sensitive calculations. By voting that thecity of Cleburne's ordinance was invalid, the Supreme Court did much for thementally retarded in general. Although mentally retarded people are different, the Court stated, the difference is irrelevant--inappropriate, unless theproposal in question threatens a city's interests in a way those granted permits would not. However, viewed as a constitutional test case by advocates forthe mentally retarded Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, when lookedat in a specific way, only sheds light on the Supreme Court's mixed message.
Related Cases
- Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981).
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Should Facilities for Mentally Retarded Persons be Allowed in Neighborhoods?
Opening a group home for mentally disabled individuals within family neighborhoods may cause significant controversy between the organization trying to establish housing for its potential residents, and the existing neighbors.
The right to establish group homes within residential areas of a city or townis protected under the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968. This act provides greater access to housing for the disabled, and protects against discriminatory practices. Further, a group home can be viewed no differently than any other person's home. As a result, a city cannot stipulate that a group home not be located in any area deemed "residential."
Residents in neighborhoods where group homes try to locate may become alarmedby the prospect of mentally retarded persons living in their midst. In somecases, neighbors fear that the group home may lack adequate supervision for its residents. Some cite fear for the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Others believe residents suffering from psychiatric problems should be barred from group homes. Even others cite the potential effect these group homes might have on their property value.
Findlaw. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html. The Record Online, http://www.bergen.com/psouth/boardjc199807093.htm.
User Comments Add a comment…