Moore v. East Cleveland
Encyclopedia
Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494
(1977), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court held 5-4 that an ordinance which restricted housing to a single family and defined the family as a nuclear family
, rather than an extended family
, was unconstitutional and a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
.
, Ohio
, and owned a home with her son and two grandsons, who were first cousins. The City of East Cleveland created a housing ordinance limiting occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family, in part because of an influx of children from Cleveland seeking the better schools in East Cleveland. The ordinance defined a family as a nuclear family. The appellant was convicted of violating the ordinance and appealed. The City of East Cleveland then argued that the ordinance was constitutional under Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
, 416 U.S. 1 , which upheld an ordinance imposing limits on the types of groups that could occupy a single dwelling unit.
.
The Court further held that
(a) This case was distinguishable from Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
, because that ordinance only affected unrelated individuals. The ordinance here limits its definition of family to the nuclear family, a relatively new conception.
(b) When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.
(c) The ordinance had a weak relationship to the objectives cited by the city such as avoiding overcrowding, traffic congestion, and an undue financial burden on the school system because a nuclear family could still have a much larger impact on these than a small group of extended family living together.
(d) The strong constitutional protection of the sanctity of the family established in numerous decisions of this Court extends to the family choice involved in this case, and is not confined within an arbitrary boundary drawn at the limits of the nuclear family (essentially a couple [p*495] and their dependent children). Appropriate limits on substantive due process come not from drawing arbitrary lines, but from careful "respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society." Griswold v. Connecticut
and that the history and tradition of this Nation compel a larger conception of the family.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1977), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court held 5-4 that an ordinance which restricted housing to a single family and defined the family as a nuclear family
Nuclear family
Nuclear family is a term used to define a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children. This is in contrast to the smaller single-parent family, and to the larger extended family. Nuclear families typically center on a married couple, but not always; the nuclear family may have...
, rather than an extended family
Extended family
The term extended family has several distinct meanings. In modern Western cultures dominated by nuclear family constructs, it has come to be used generically to refer to grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins, whether they live together within the same household or not. However, it may also refer...
, was unconstitutional and a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
Background
Appellant was a grandmother who was a resident of East ClevelandEast Cleveland, Ohio
East Cleveland is a city in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, United States, and is the first suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. The population was 17,843 at the 2010 census....
, Ohio
Ohio
Ohio is a Midwestern state in the United States. The 34th largest state by area in the U.S.,it is the 7th‑most populous with over 11.5 million residents, containing several major American cities and seven metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 or more.The state's capital is Columbus...
, and owned a home with her son and two grandsons, who were first cousins. The City of East Cleveland created a housing ordinance limiting occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family, in part because of an influx of children from Cleveland seeking the better schools in East Cleveland. The ordinance defined a family as a nuclear family. The appellant was convicted of violating the ordinance and appealed. The City of East Cleveland then argued that the ordinance was constitutional under Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling.-Background:...
, 416 U.S. 1 , which upheld an ordinance imposing limits on the types of groups that could occupy a single dwelling unit.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
The Court further held that
(a) This case was distinguishable from Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling.-Background:...
, because that ordinance only affected unrelated individuals. The ordinance here limits its definition of family to the nuclear family, a relatively new conception.
(b) When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.
(c) The ordinance had a weak relationship to the objectives cited by the city such as avoiding overcrowding, traffic congestion, and an undue financial burden on the school system because a nuclear family could still have a much larger impact on these than a small group of extended family living together.
(d) The strong constitutional protection of the sanctity of the family established in numerous decisions of this Court extends to the family choice involved in this case, and is not confined within an arbitrary boundary drawn at the limits of the nuclear family (essentially a couple [p*495] and their dependent children). Appropriate limits on substantive due process come not from drawing arbitrary lines, but from careful "respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society." Griswold v. Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut, , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives...
and that the history and tradition of this Nation compel a larger conception of the family.