Document: 434 U.S. 5 98 S.Ct. 24 54 L.Ed.2d 4 COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al.,v.Rudolph A. RICHARDS al. No. 76-1418. Oct. 11, 1977. Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, See 976, 535. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of D. C. Federation Civic Associations for leave to file a brief as amici curiae and the petition writ certiorari are granted. 2 To stem flow traffic from commercial industrial districts into adjoining residential neighborhoods, Arlington County, Va., adopted zoning ordinance § 29D. directs County Manager determine those areas especially crowded with parked cars outside neighborhood.1 Free parking permits then issued residents designated their own vehicles, persons doing business there, some visitors. park an automobile without permit in restricted area between 8 a. m. p. on weekdays is misdemeanor. 3 Acting under ordinance, Aurora Highlands, neighborhood near large office complex. Commuters who worked this complex had regularly sued Circuit Court enjoin enforcement state federal constitutional grounds. Virginia Supreme ultimately held that violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment.2 As stated its preamble, intended "to reduce hazardous conditions resulting use streets within zoned uses vehicles by using or . ; protect polluted air, excessive noise, trash refuse caused entry such vehicles; unreasonable burdens gaining access residences; preserve character districts; promote efficiency maintenance clean safe condition; value property safety children other pedestrians safety, peace, good order, comfort, convenience welfare inhabitants County." 6 Conceding legitimacy these goals, found ordinance's discrimination nonresidents "bears no reasonable relation [the regulation's] objectives," and, therefore, "the face offends equal protection guarantee 14th Amendment." 217 Va. 645, 651, 231 S.E.2d 231, 235. We disagree. 7 air pollution environmental effects commuting, community reasonably may restrict on-street available commuters, thus encouraging reliance car pools mass transit. same goal served assuring convenient at home during day. A also decide restrictions particular would enhance quality life there reducing hazards, litter. By definition, against inhere restrictions.3 Constitution does not outlaw social objectives, nor it presume distinctions local be invidious. requires only distinction drawn like Arlington's rationally regulation's objectives. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 297, 303, 96 2513, 2516, 49 511 (1976); Village Belle Terre Boraas, 416 1, 8, 94 1536, 1540, 39 797 (1974). On face, meets test. 9 Accordingly, judgment vacated, case remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 10 It so ordered. 11 Mr. Justice MARSHALL grant set oral argument. This condition met when average number [operated whose destination district] excess 25% spaces total actually occupied any exceeds 75% month ." Although trial court invalid State Federal Constitutions, rested decision solely Amendment. Restrictions nonresident have sparked considerable litigation. See, e. g., South Terminal Corp. EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 671-676 (CA1 1974) (restrictions upheld); Friends Earth 499 1118, 1125 (CA2 Commonwealth Petralia, --- Mass. ---, 362 N.E.2d 513 (1977) Whisman, Ohio Misc. 59, 263 411 (Ct. Com. Pleas, 1970) invalidated); Georgetown Assn. Businessmen District Columbia, Civ. 7242-76 (D.C.Super.Ct., Aug. 9, 1976) preliminarily enjoined). United States amicus notes discourage commuting been recommended Environmental Agency implement Clean Air Amendments 1970. 38 Fed.Reg. 30629 (1973).

Category: 7