City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1976)
Author: Sam Biers

Facts: Cleburne Living Center proposed to open a group home that would house 13 mentally challenged men and women under the close supervision of staff members.  City determined that a special use permit was required b/c the proposed home should be classified the same as a hospital for the feeble minded.

Issue(s): Whether heightened scrutiny is Constitutionally mandated when city ordinance discriminates on the basis of mental retardation; and whether ordinance is valid under 14^th?

Holding: B/c the Govt can legitimately distinguish members of a class with a disability, a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate, but even under that standard the ordinance is invalid as applied here.

Procedure: After holding a public hearing, TX City Council denied special use permit for operation of mentally retarded group home under zoning ordinace.  CLC filed action D Ct which declared the ordinance Rationally Related to City’s legitimate interest–legal responsibility over CLC its residents and the safety of residents in adjoining neighborhood.  Ct of App Reversed, applied Intermediate Scrutiny and held class was quasi-suspect and ordinance violated EP Cl b/c it did not Subst’l further an important Govt Objective; USS.Ct Affirmed on diff grounds and otherwise vacated.

Rule(s): 14^th

Rationale:   Ct has declined to increase the heightened review in cases involving differential treatment based on age. Where individuals w/i a group have distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests the state has the authority to implement, Ct are reluctant to closely scrutinize legislative choices out of respect for separation of powers.  In such a case, legislative choices regarding whether, how, and to what extent state interests should be pursued, EP Cl requires only Rational means that serve a Legitimate End.

Heightened scrutiny involves substantive judgments about legislative decisions.  Classifications based on physical disabilities have always been accepted as legitimate b/c the state’s interest rests in the ability to provide providing the means for those w/i the class to cope in life.  Federal and state govt have enacted legislation to protect the mentally disabled, and society expects and approves of such legislation. 

Legislators must have some degree of flexibility and freedom from judicial oversight in shaping and limiting remedial efforts.  The legislative response (enactments) negates any claim that the mentally retarded are politically powerless.  If deemed quasi-suspect, it would be difficult to distinguish which characteristics constituted immutable ones from others–this would create an immense group.

No presumption of invalidity is given legislative action re: mentally retarded people, therefore no quasi-suspect class, but this does not leave them w/o protection.  1^st whether denying the permit deprives E P of the laws.  IF so, then no reason exists to decide whether the ordinance is facially invalid.  Here, the City may not defer to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic b/c the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases.  The City never clarified how it can rationally justify denying group of MR, but allows other groups to occupy the same site.

DISSENT: The Ct is actually using a heightened scrutiny b/c under RR the City wins-precedent.