Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 19–20, 1974 Decided April 1, 1974 | |
| Full case name | Village of Belle Terre, et al., v. Bruce Boraas, et al. |
| Citations | 416 U.S. 1 (more) 94 S. Ct. 1536; 39 L. Ed. 2d 797; 6 ERC 1417 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1973)) |
| Holding | |
| An ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings did not involve a procedural disparity, did not deprive any group of a fundamental right, and is rationally related to a permissible government objective. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Brennan |
| Dissent | Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance in Belle Terre, New York, allowing a restrictive definition of family that prevented unrelated college students from residing in a single-family dwelling.[1]
Background
[edit]The Village of Belle Terre is a village in Long Island, New York. The village only permitted one-family residencies. Six students studying at Stony Brook University rented a home in the village. None of them were related in any way, so their living situation violated the ordinance. The District Court found the ordinance constitutional.[2] The defendants moved out of the house during proceedings.[3]
Second Circuit Decision
[edit]The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the ordinance was unconstitutional and violated the students' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Constitutional Amendment.[4] This reversed the District Court's judgement.
Supreme Court Decision
[edit]In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Village of Belle Terre and found that the ordinance was constitutional.[5]
Majority opinion
[edit]William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the court. The court stated that ordinance involved no procedural disparities or any deprivation of a fundamental right.[3] The court also decided that the tenants moving out during court proceedings was irrelevant.
Dissent
[edit]A dissent was delivered by Thurgood Marshall. He believed that the ordinance violated the First Amendment rights to freedom of association.[2]
Dissent
[edit]Another dissent was delivered by William J. Brennan Jr. based on the fact that the tenants had moved out and therefore had no cognizable case.
See also
[edit]Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
References
[edit]- ^ Schulman, Sy J.; Hagman, Donald G.; Bair, Fred H. Jr.; Stickel, Fred G. II (1974). "Reports' Comments on Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas". Land Use Law & Zoning Digest. 26 (6): 3–7 – via Hein Online.
- ^ a b "Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)". Justia Law. Retrieved June 26, 2024.
- ^ a b United States, U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.). Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. United States Reports, vol. 416, 1 Apr. 1974, pp. 1-20. Library of Congress, tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep416/usrep416001/usrep416001.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2024.
- ^ "Boraas v. Village of Belle Terre, 476 F.2d 806 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved June 26, 2024.
- ^ "Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas". Oyez Project. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved June 26, 2024.
External links
[edit]
- Text of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |