Court: Supreme Court of the United States; May 31, 1977; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Justice Powell announced the judgment of the Court, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, regarding East Cleveland's housing ordinance that restricts occupancy to specific familial relationships. Appellant Mrs. Inez Moore was convicted for having her grandsons, who are first cousins, living with her, as the ordinance does not recognize their relationship under its definition of 'family.' Following a notice of violation and subsequent criminal charge, Mrs. Moore's motion to dismiss the charges, citing constitutional invalidity, was denied, resulting in a five-day jail sentence and a $25 fine. The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review. The city argued that the case was similar to Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, which upheld similar occupancy limits. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that Belle Terre allowed relatives to live together while East Cleveland's ordinance explicitly prohibits certain familial arrangements, intruding deeply into family life. The Court emphasized that personal choices regarding family living arrangements are protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedent that affirms a 'private realm of family life' free from state interference, the Court concluded that the ordinance could not withstand scrutiny as it imposes substantial restrictions on family structure without sufficient justification.
The city aims to justify its ordinance as a means to prevent overcrowding, reduce traffic and parking congestion, and alleviate financial strain on East Cleveland's schools. However, the ordinance's effectiveness in achieving these goals is minimal. It allows traditional nuclear families to reside together, regardless of the number of licensed drivers, while prohibiting adult siblings from sharing a household even if they utilize public transport. The ordinance permits a grandmother to live with a dependent son and numerous grandchildren but forces a grandmother to separate from her grandson due to the presence of other family members. This highlights a weak connection between the ordinance and the city's stated objectives.
The city distinguishes its case by referencing Meyer and Pierce, arguing that constitutional rights regarding family living arrangements are limited to nuclear families. Nonetheless, these cases focused primarily on parental rights related to childbearing, custody, and education, not the broader family relationships at issue here. The essence of the Due Process Clause, as articulated by Justice Harlan, is rooted in balancing individual liberty with societal demands, shaped by historical traditions. This balance is dynamic, and any decision that significantly deviates from it is unlikely to endure, while those that build upon established traditions are more likely to be upheld. The concept of liberty under the Due Process Clause encompasses freedom from arbitrary restraints and necessitates careful examination of state interests that may justify limitations on personal freedoms.
Substantive due process presents challenges for the judicial branch, particularly when it comes to safeguarding substantive liberties without clear guidance from the Bill of Rights. Historical precedents, such as the Lochner era, highlight the risks associated with judicial intervention, which could be influenced by the personal biases of current justices. However, caution should not lead to the complete abandonment of family rights. Legal boundaries regarding substantive due process should be informed by historical context and the fundamental values of society, rather than arbitrary distinctions.
The Constitution recognizes the sanctity of the family, as it is a cornerstone of American history and tradition. The definition of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include extended relations like uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents. This broader understanding is rooted in the shared experiences and values that families pass down through generations. Despite a societal shift away from extended family living arrangements, the historical significance of these relationships and shared responsibilities remains vital.
Child-rearing decisions, historically supported by cases such as Yoder, Meyer, and Pierce, often involve extended family members. In times of hardship, families commonly unite for support, and such arrangements should not be disregarded by the State. The precedent set by Pierce, which invalidated a law mandating public school attendance, illustrates that the Constitution protects against governmental efforts to impose standardized family structures. Consequently, East Cleveland cannot enforce restrictive family definitions that undermine the diversity of family living arrangements.
Reversed. Citations refer to the East Cleveland Housing Code. Section 1341.08 (1966) defines 'Family' as individuals related to the household head or spouse living together as a single unit, including: a) the spouse; b) unmarried children without children of their own; c) parents; d) one dependent child (married or unmarried) and their family, where a dependent is defined as receiving over fifty percent support from the household head and spouse; e) a single individual may also constitute a family. The appellant argues the ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause, but this claim is not addressed. John Moore, Jr. was cited for violating the ordinance, with disputes regarding his father’s residence at the time of citation. The dissent suggests Mrs. Moore should be denied a hearing for not seeking a variance, but it is argued that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is inappropriate for criminal defendants. Mrs. Moore contends the ordinance is facially invalid, a matter beyond the zoning review board's purview. The Court has not established a principle that would bar criminal defendants from challenging the constitutional validity of the statute under which they are prosecuted. Previous cases requiring exhaustion were based on specific statutes that warned defendants of potential forfeiture of defenses, which does not apply here. Ohio courts have considered all her claims without hindering state administrative processes. The Euclid case established that land-use regulations violate the Due Process Clause if they are arbitrary and unreasonable, emphasizing that the general welfare encompasses a wide range of governmental purposes.
The government must demonstrate that its regulations rationally advance a legitimate state purpose. East Cleveland has an ordinance (Section 1351.03) that directly addresses overcrowding by linking maximum occupancy to habitable floor area, which means John, Jr. and his father can reside with Mrs. Moore without exceeding these limits. The sustained validity of Meyer and Pierce contrasts with the rejection of other substantive due process cases, highlighting a careful evaluation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the incorporation of Bill of Rights guarantees into the Due Process Clause. Griswold reaffirmed the Court's duty to scrutinize state justifications for restrictions on individual freedoms central to a free society, particularly the constitutional rights of parents in child-rearing, recognized as a strong cultural tradition in Western civilization. The ruling in Ginsberg v. New York similarly underscored this parental right as fundamental to societal structure. Griswold invalidated Connecticut's anticontraception law, with concurring Justices invoking the significance of family relations as foundational to civilization. Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman emphasized that the law intruded upon the life within the home, which is vital to family integrity, drawing protection from multiple constitutional rights. Justice White's dissent cautioned against expanding the Due Process Clause through historical and traditional interpretations, arguing for limits on judicial powers. Recent census data indicate diverse family structures beyond the nuclear model, demonstrating the evolving nature of family dynamics. The background of John Moore, Jr., who lost his mother early and was raised by his grandmother, illustrates the need for such familial arrangements.
