![]() The Court of Appeals erred in holding mental retardation a quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial review than is normally accorded economic and social legislation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that mental retardation is a "quasi-suspect" classification that, under the applicable "heightened scrutiny" equal protection test, the ordinance was facially invalid because it did not substantially further an important governmental purpose and that the ordinance was also invalid as applied.ġ. The District Court held the ordinance and its application constitutional. CLC and others (also respondents here) then filed suit against the city and a number of its officials, alleging that the zoning ordinance, on its face and as applied, violated the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents. Accordingly, CLC applied for a special use permit, but the City Council, after a public hearing, denied the permit. (CLC), which anticipated leasing a certain building for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded, was informed by petitioner city that a special use permit would be required, the city having concluded that the proposed group home should be classified as a "hospital for the feebleminded" under the zoning ordinance covering the area in which the proposed home would be located. However, the Court found that fear of mentally retarded people is not a legitimate government interest. ![]() This decision is a rare example of when a court strikes down a law under rational basis review, which is the lowest level of scrutiny and generally an easy burden for the government to meet. However, this particular regulation fails the rational basis standard simply because it is based on irrational prejudice and is not connected to any legitimate interest. The Fourteenth Amendment would be expanded too broadly if it permitted special treatment for such a large group, since its protections must be limited to certain clearly defined groups if they continue to be so strong. More intrusive judicial review might discourage legislatures from passing laws in this area, and legislatures take action on this group's behalf with sufficient frequency and force to show that this group is not politically powerless. The Fifth Circuit agreed after applying heightened scrutiny on the basis that mentally retarded individuals are a protected group.Ĭourts should resist applying heightened scrutiny to regulations that affect mentally retarded people because regulations in this area require a substantial amount of variety and tailoring, which legislatures are better situated than courts to oversee. The Center argued that the zoning ordinance was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. The city rejected a permit application by the Cleburne Living Center, Inc., after receiving opposition from residents of the area. While they generally did not require a permit, a home for mentally retarded individuals did require a permit. Multiple-residence dwellings were classified as R-3 in the City of Cleburne in Texas.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |