Fourteenth Amendment Cases Flashcards
Court found a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a violation of due process.
Court established the principle of public regualtion of private businesses in the public interest.
Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when teh regulation becomes necessary for the public good.
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)
Court found a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process.
A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be inurious to the health, morals, or safety of hte community, cannot, in any just sence, be deemed a taking.
Mugler v. Kansas; U.S. Supreme Court (1887)
Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family.
Court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values.
Court extended concept of zoning under the police powers to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.
Court found ordinance was not arbitrary, did not unreasonably apply to some individuals and not others, and was reasonably related to ar ational state objective.
May prohibit unrelated individuals (near a university - intent is to prevent too many kids in one house).
Village of belle Terre v. Boaraas; U.S. Supreme Court (1974)
District Court held that Arlington Heights’ multi-family rezoning denial was not motivated by racial discrimination but by a desire to protect property values and maintain the Village’s zoning plan.
Ord. did not violate equal protection clause.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1977)
Court found Mount Laurel’s exclusionary zoning prohibited multi-family, low-/moderate-income housing, and mobile homes.
Court required city to rezone to support its “fair-share” of the region’s affordable housing units.
Court must provide opporutnity for low-income housing dev. through zoning ordinnace.
Mount Laurell II comes around in 1983 - “fair share” required.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)
Church sued - accused City of Boerne of violating it4s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights by denying permit to expand church in historic preservation district.
Court found that cities can’t “substantially burden religion’s free exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling government interest, and, even then it may only impose the least restrictive burden.
Court found Boerne’s local legislation (can’t be controlled by Congress) did not favor one religion over another and was not based on animus or hostitlity towards free religious exercise.
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)
