Can a municipality constitutionally restrict occupancy in single-family dwellings based on familial relationships?

The village of Belle Terre on Long Island, with approximately 220 homes and 700 residents, enacted a zoning ordinance limiting land use to one-family dwellings. The ordinance defined 'family' as individuals related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or no more than two unrelated persons living together. The Dickmans, property owners in Belle Terre, leased their house to six unrelated students from a nearby university. Upon learning of this arrangement, the village issued an 'Order to Remedy Violations' of the ordinance to the Dickmans.

In response, the Dickmans and three of their tenants initiated legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment to have the ordinance deemed unconstitutional. This action challenged the validity of Belle Terre's zoning restrictions and their impact on property owners' rights to lease their homes and individuals' freedom to choose their living arrangements.

The City enacted an ordinance that was subsequently challenged in court. The District Court initially upheld the ordinance as constitutional. However, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. In a split decision, with one judge dissenting, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, finding the ordinance unconstitutional. Following this reversal, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, noting probable jurisdiction.

(Douglas, J.)

Yes. A municipality can constitutionally restrict occupancy in single-family dwellings based on familial relationships. Zoning ordinances that limit occupancy of single-family dwellings to traditional families or small groups of unrelated individuals are valid exercises of municipal police power. Such regulations serve legitimate governmental interests in controlling population density, preserving the character of residential neighborhoods, and promoting family values. The ordinance in question bears a rational relationship to these permissible state objectives and does not violate any fundamental rights that would trigger heightened scrutiny. Land-use regulations, including those defining "family" and regulating household composition, are entitled to a presumption of validity. Legislatures have broad discretion to implement zoning schemes to address local needs and conditions. The police power encompasses not only health and safety concerns but also the power to lay out zones where family values and quiet seclusion establish the basic character of the neighborhood. Restricting occupancy based on family relationships is rationally related to reducing congestion, traffic, and noise in residential areas. While the ordinance may have some impact on associational interests, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The right to live together as an unrelated group is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny. Under the applicable rational basis test, the ordinance is a reasonable means of achieving legitimate governmental objectives related to land use and community character.

Dissent (Brennan, J.) The case is moot and no longer presents a cognizable case or controversy. The original tenant appellees have moved out, raising significant questions about the continued existence of a justiciable dispute. This Court should not be ruling on matters where the underlying factual circumstances have materially changed, potentially altering the nature of the legal question at hand.

Dissent (Marshall, J.) The ordinance infringes on fundamental rights of association and privacy protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It should be subject to strict scrutiny, which it fails to meet. The ordinance is both overinclusive and underinclusive in achieving its stated goals. It impermissibly restricts the freedom of individuals to choose their living arrangements and associates. The majority's deference to local zoning powers overlooks the serious constitutional implications of this regulation. Future cases must carefully scrutinize similar ordinances that infringe on personal liberties under the guise of zoning authority.