Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawDue ProcessFamily RightsZoningDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentfamily living arrangementsextended family
Facts
East Cleveland had a housing ordinance limiting occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family, but its definition of "family" recognized only certain categories of related individuals. Mrs. Inez Moore lived in her home with her son and two grandsons, who were first cousins rather than brothers. Because her household fit none of the ordinance's approved family categories, the city cited her, charged her criminally, and she was convicted. She challenged the ordinance as facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue
Does a city housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it criminalizes certain extended family living arrangements by narrowly defining which related persons may live together in a single dwelling?
Rule
When government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, courts must carefully examine the importance of the governmental interests asserted and the extent to which the challenged regulation actually serves those interests. The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family because family relationships are deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition, and the State may not lightly deny the choice of close relatives in this degree of kinship to live together.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The city of Dayton, Ohio, limits single-family homes to occupants who fit its definition of "family": parents, their unmarried children, and one dependent grandchild. Lena Ortiz lives with her adult daughter and the daughter's two children, who are siblings, and also with Lena's orphaned nephew, age 14. The city prosecutes Lena because the nephew is not within the listed categories.
If Lena challenges the ordinance under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the strongest argument that the ordinance is unconstitutional?
Explanation. The majority held that when government slices deeply into family life by choosing which close relatives may live together, ordinary zoning deference is inappropriate. Courts must carefully examine the importance of the asserted interests and the extent to which the rule actually serves them. A rule that arbitrarily excludes one close relative while permitting comparable households has only a tenuous relation to overcrowding or congestion concerns. (Derived from Moore v. East Cleveland (n.d.).)