City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
1985 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued March 18, 1985 Decided April 23, 1985 | |
Full case name | City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. v. Cleburne Living Center, et al. |
Citations | 473 U.S. 432 (more) 105 S. Ct. 3249; 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 |
Holding | |
Possessing an intellectual disability is not a quasi-suspect classification calling for a heightened level of scrutiny, but nevertheless, the requirement of a special use permit for a proposed group home for people with intellectual disabilities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because no rational basis for the discriminatory classification could be shown, and in the absence of such justification, the classification appeared to be based on irrational prejudice against the intellectually disabled. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Burger |
Concur/dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for intellectually disabled people. The city of Cleburne, Texas refused to grant CLC a permit on the basis of a municipal zoning ordinance. CLC then sued the City of Cleburne on the theory that the denial of the permit violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights of CLC and their potential residents.
Applying rational basis review, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as applied to CLC. The Court declined to rule that intellectually disabled people were a quasi-suspect or suspect class.