Brief Fact Summary. The City of East Cleveland adopted a housing ordinance, which limited the occupancy of a dwelling unit to a single family. The ordinance had an unusual definition of a family, which recognized only a few categories of related individuals.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the court will examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.
Issue. Is the ordinance constitutional?
Held. No. Reversed.
The Court first distinguished this case from the facts of Village of Belle Terre v. Borass, by noting that one overriding factor set the cases apart. In that case, the ordinance expressly allowed all people who were related by blood, adoption or marriage to live together, and in sustaining the ordinance the court was careful to note that the ordinance promoted “family needs” and “family values.”
When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family, neither Belle Terre nor Euclid v. Ambler, governs; the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate. When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the court will carefully examine the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.
Prior decisions establish that the United States Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.
The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents sharing a household along with parents has deep roots, which are worth of constitutional protection.
Dissent. Freedom of association is not an applicable doctrine upon which to decide this case.
Discussion. This case is illustrative of the results of the rule set down in Belle Terre v. Borass, which gave such wide deference to the police power of the legislative function. The rule there upheld the constitutionality of an ordinance, which did not make any allowance for non-traditional family units.