Document: 538 U.S. 188 CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO, ET AL.v.BUCKEYE COMMUNITY HOPE FOUNDATION AL. No. 01-1269. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 21, 2003. Decided March 25, After the City Council Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (hereinafter City), passed a site-plan ordinance authorizing construction low-income housing complex by respondents — nonprofit corporation dedicated to developing affordable and related parties group citizens filed formal petition requesting that be repealed or submitted popular vote. Pursuant City's charter, referendum stayed site plan's implementation until its approval voters. An court denied an injunction against petition, city engineer, on advice from law director, their request for building permits. The voters eventually referendum, thus repealing ordinance. Subsequently, declared invalid under Ohio's Constitution, issued permits, commenced. While state litigation was still pending, federal suit officials, seeking ordering issue as well declaratory monetary relief. They claimed submitting plan voters, officials violated Equal Protection Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, Fair Housing Act. District Court, inter alia, summary judgment motion. invalidated reducing action claim damages delay, granted judgment. In reversing, Sixth Circuit found had produced sufficient evidence go trial allegation City, allowing stay implementation, gave effect racial bias reflected in public's opposition project; stated valid Act because actions disparate impact based race family status; genuine material fact existed whether engaged arbitrary irrational government conduct violation substantive due process. Held: 1. Respondents have not presented equal protection can survive Proof racially discriminatory intent is required show Clause violation. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265. Because injury petitioning process, itself which never went into cases this has subjected enacted, discretionary measures scrutiny treated decisionmakers' statements intent, see, e. g., Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 432, 448, are inapposite. Neither official acts challenge reflects support liability. public, acted pursuant requirement sets out facially neutral procedure, refusing performed nondiscretionary, ministerial act consistent with Charter. point no suggesting these were themselves motivated animus. they cite allegedly voter sentiment, made private individuals during citizen-driven drive do not, themselves, constitute Amendment purposes. And did offer motives behind fairly attributable State. See Blum Yaretsky, 457 991, 1004. fact, adhering charter procedures, enabled public debate take place, advancing significant First interests. Respondents' alternative theory concert prevent being built status likely residents addressed below apparently disavowed at oral argument. Moreover, articulated cognizable legal such grounds. Pp. 194-198. 2. Subjecting process Both respondents' claims lack merit. First, engineer's refusal permits while pending sense constituted egregious denying benefit plan. light charter's provision challenged approved director's instruction engineer represented eminently rational directive. Indeed, plan, law, could implemented referendum. second city's submission administrative land-use determination procedures per se basis Court's precedent. people retain power govern through respect any matter, legislative administrative, within realm local affairs. Eastlake Forest Enterprises, 426 668, 674, n. 9. Though referendum's result may if it capricious, itself. 198-199. 3. abandoned claim, Circuit's holding vacated, case remanded instructions dismiss relevant portion complaint. 199-200. 263 F. 3d 627, reversed part, vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. SCALIA, concurring opinion, THOMAS, joined, post, p. 200. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. 2 Glen D. Nager argued cause petitioners. With him briefs Virgil Arrington, Jr., Michael A. Carvin, Fried. 3 David B. Salmons pro hac vice States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Boyd, Deputy Clement, Mark L. Gross, Teresa Kwong. 4 Edward G. Kramer respondents. Diane E. Citrino, Kenneth Kowalski, P. Seng.* 5 JUSTICE O'CONNOR 6 1995, called repeal municipal complex. Appeals issues regard Clause, Act, 82 Stat. 81, amended, 42 C. § 3601 et seq., placing ballot. We certiorari determine erred ruling proceed trial. 7 * A 8 June Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, use tax credits, others respondents), purchased land zoned apartments Ohio. February 1996, Pleasant Meadows, multifamily, complex, planning commission. Residents Falls immediately expressed proposal. 630 (CA6 2001). agreed various conditions, including build earthen wall surrounded fence one side commission unanimously council final authorization. 9 As unfolded, resurfaced coalesced drive. Charter, Art. 9, 2, App. 14 (giving "the approve reject polls resolution Council" 30 days ordinance's passage). At meetings independent gatherings, some mayor attended express his personal voiced concerns: development would crime drug activity escalate, families children move in, attract population similar Prange Drive, only African-American neighborhood. See, 3d, 636-637; 98, 139, 191; Tr. 182-185, 270, 316. Nevertheless, met all zoning requirements, project April 1, Ordinance 48-1996. 10 On 29, provides "shall [not] majority" filing 15. 30, sought court, arguing Constitution does authorize referendums matters. May 31, Common Pleas injunction. Civ. 96-05-1701 (Summit County), Pet. Cert. 255a. month later, nonetheless requested order begin construction. 26, rejected after advised director "could `does effect' petitions." 633. 11 November joint stipulation, however, results election certified over resolved. Stipulation Jointly Agreed upon Preliminary Injunction Order 5:96 CV 1458 (ND Ohio, Nov. 1996). July 1998, having initially concluded proper, unconstitutional. St. 539, 697 N. 2d 181 (holding State authorizes relation acts, ordinance). subsequently commenced Meadows. B 12 state-court several alleged "in electors rejecting [its] application permits," 3601. Complaint ¶ 5, 1996) Complaint). 1997, dismissed individual capacity but motion claims, concluding both claims. 970 Supp. 1289, 1308 1997). delay construction, again moved 19, 1999, counts. 1458, 35a. 13 reversed. project. 639. then held even failed prove intentional discrimination, status. id., 640. Finally, lawfully Id., 644. certiorari, 536 938 (2002), now reverse constitutional holdings vacate holding. II allege Clause. 41. Petitioners astray ascribing motivations handful supportive City. agree petitioners present 15 clear "[p]roof purpose required" 265 (1977) (citing Washington Davis, 229 (1976)). deciding question, relying we intent. 634-635 448 (1985); supra, 268; Hunter Erickson, 393 385, 392 (1969)). Ultimately, neither 16 requirements procedure. By ballot, enact therefore cannot said given voters' supporting petition. Similarly, act. He response ... issue" prohibited going "approved majority those voting thereon," 16. example, followed obligations set forth purpose, selectively refused follow standard different case. 17 Instead, establish rely heavily sentiment. 635-637. But course drive, sometimes analysis, see 194, purposes Amendment. Cf. 1002-1003 (1982) ("`[T]he principle become firmly embedded our inhibited first section States'" (quoting Shelley Kraemer, 334 (1948))). put "private [that] triggered" "can attributed State." 18 assessing "basic instrument democratic government," 679 (1976), observed "[p]rovisions demonstrate devotion democracy, bias, prejudice," James Valtierra, 402 137, 141 (1971). established admonition "government prohibit expression idea simply society finds offensive disagreeable," Texas Johnson, 491 397, 414 (1989), dovetails notion citizens, regardless content ideas, right government. Meyer Grant, 486 414, 421-422 (1988) (describing circulation initiative "`core political speech'"); Police Dept. Chicago Mosley, 408 92, 96 (1972) ("[G]overnment grant forum whose views acceptable, deny wishing less favored more controversial views"). Again, decisionmakers sponsors deliberation ultimately enacted initiative. Seattle School Dist. 458 457, 471 (considering subjecting scrutiny); S., 268. 19 liability: mayor, Meadows residents. Brief 12-26; Oral Arg. 33-34, 36-40, 43. allege, among other things, prompted disgruntled file intentionally delayed deliberations thwart development, stoked opposition. 17. Not courts directly address liability, also appear argument, focusing instead denial 37-38. 20 What more, fail exercised decisionmaking much kind "coercive power" either "overt covert" render statements, intents purposes, action. Nor, noted above, sentiments way actors brought suit. ibid. finding relied almost entirely citizens. dismissing capacity, he orchestrated Supp., 1321. III 21 evaluating found, threshold legitimate entitlement property interest council's 642. complaint before contend reason Circuit, grounds conduct. ¶¶ 39, 43; 32-49. find merit claim. 22 need decide possessed County Sacramento Lewis, 523 833, 846 (1998) (noting evaluations "abusive executive action," "only most `arbitrary sense'"). "[n]o [challenged petition] shall 15, 23 liability matter distinction ask us draw, drew between referendums. 672, 675, stems people, "[a] characterized delegation power," unlawful unless accompanied "discernible standards." "`with affairs.'" 137. "substantive result" "arbitrary capricious," 676, subjection decision, IV 24 For reasons detailed trial, 641, 31. remand dismiss, prejudice, Deakins Monaghan, 484 193, 200 (1988). 25 is, accordingly, part further proceedings opinion. 26 It so ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Athens, al. Barry M. Byron, John Gotherman, Garry Hunter; International Municipal Lawyers Association Henry W. Underhill, Charles Hinton, Brad Neighbor. amici affirmance Lawyers' Committee Civil Rights Under Law Barbara Arnwine, Thomas J. Henderson, Cheryl Ziegler, Eva Jefferson Paterson, Javier Maldonado, Churchill; National Home Builders Jon Ward; Alliance Joseph R. Guerra, Healy, Relman, Meera Trehan, Robert Schwemm; Multi Leo Rydzewski Clarine Nardi Riddle. H. Findley Meriem Hubbard Pacific Legal Foundation curiae. 27 whom THOMAS joins, concurring. 28 I join Part III, concludes assertions must rejected. write separately observe that, there been conduct, substantive-due-process 29 absurd think capricious" violates even, capricious cancellation employee's parking privileges. judicially created component protects, said, certain "fundamental liberty interest[s]" deprivation government, infringement narrowly tailored serve compelling interest. Glucksberg, 521 702, 721 (1997). Freedom receiving permit interests." To contrary, Takings allows confiscation long taken just compensation paid; mere regulation "narrowly tailored" effectuate "compelling interest." Those who "arbitrary" deprivations nonfundamental interests look Graham Connor, 490 386, 395 precludes "`substantive process'" analysis when specific governs. assertion used land: rather deprived land. There nothing procedurally defective about conditioning outcome cf. 137 (1971), issuing prescribed duly Charter (Art. 2), surely constitutes "due law," Connecticut Public Safety Doe, ante, (SCALIA, concurring). 31 observations,

Category: 1