City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
- Decided
- July 1, 1985
- Docket
- 84-468
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,112 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Copeland v. Nevada Southern Detention Center
What later courts said
- holding that the Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike” — Morrison v. Garraghty (2001)
- holding that the Equal Protection Clause "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike" — Gary David Morrison, Jr. v. David A. Garraghty (2001)
- holding that, under rational basis review, an ordinance requiring a special use permit for homes for the mentally retarded violated equal protection — Harris County, Texas v. Carmax Auto Superstores Inc (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*435] Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
A Texas city denied a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance requiring permits for such homes. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that mental retardation is a “quasi-suspect” classification and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not substantially further an important governmental purpose. We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate, but conclude that under that standard the ordinance is invalid as applied in this case. h — I In July 1980, respondent Jan Hannah purchased a building at 201 Featherston Street in the city of Cleburne, Texas, with the intention of leasing it to Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC),[1] for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded. It was anticipated that the home would house 13 retarded men and women, who would be under the constant supervision of CLC staff members. The house had four bedrooms and two baths, with a half bath to be added. CLC planned to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations.[2]
[*436] The city informed CLC that a special use permit would be required for the operation of a group home at the site, and CLC accordingly submitted a permit application. In response to a subsequent inquiry from CLC, the city explained that under the zoning regulations applicable to the site, a special use permit, renewable annually, was required for the construction of “[hjospitals for the insane or feeble-minded, or alcoholic [sic] or drug addicts, or penal or correctional institutions.”[3] The city had determined that the proposed [*437] group home should be classified as a “hospital for the feeble-minded.” After holding a public hearing on CLC’s application, the City Council voted 3 to 1 to deny a special use permit.[4]
Statutes cited
- 29 U.S.C. § 794
- 42 U.S.C. § 6010
- 20 U.S.C. § 1412
- 42 U.S.C. § 1396d
- 20 U.S.C. § 1401
Cite this
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.