416 U.S. 1 (1974)
Belle Terre is a village on Long Island’s north shore consisting of about 220 homes inhabited by 700 people.1 Its total land area is less than one square mile.2 The village has restricted land use to one-family dwellings and excludes lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, or multiple-dwelling houses.3
The ordinance defines “family” as one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants.4 Up to two persons living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family.5
Appellees the Dickmans own a house in the village.6 In December 1971 they leased it for an 18-month term to Michael Truman.7 Bruce Boraas later became a co-lessee.8 Anne Parish then moved into the house along with three others.9 These six individuals are students at the nearby State University at Stony Brook, and none is related to the others by blood, adoption, or marriage.10
When the village served the Dickmans with an Order to Remedy Violations of the ordinance, the owners plus three tenants brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is unconstitutional.11 The District Court held the ordinance constitutional.12 The Court of Appeals reversed.13 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.14
During the litigation the lease expired and was extended.15 Anne Parish moved out.16 Thereafter the other five students left, and the owners now hold the home out for sale or rent, including to student groups.17
Whether the zoning ordinance interferes with a person’s right to travel?18
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.19
No. The ordinance is not aimed at transients.20 The six students leased the house for an 18-month term, showing they are not transients.21 The ordinance allows up to two unrelated persons to live and cook together as a family, and the village served an order to remedy violations only after the lease began.22
The zoning ordinance does not interfere with a person’s right to travel.23
Whether the zoning ordinance interferes with the right to migrate to and settle within a State?24
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
No. The ordinance involves no procedural disparity inflicted on some but not on others such as was presented by Griffin v. Illinois.25 The students from Stony Brook moved into the Dickmans' house under an 18-month lease.26 The ordinance applies equally to all unrelated groups exceeding two persons without targeting migration or imposing any special burdens on newcomers seeking to settle in the village.27
The zoning ordinance does not interfere with the right to migrate to and settle within a State.28
Whether the zoning ordinance bars people who are uncongenial to the present residents?29
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
No. The ordinance expresses no animosity to unmarried couples, as shown by its inclusion of two unrelated persons as a family.30 The six students occupied the house until the lease issues arose.31 The ordinance permits a family to entertain any guests without restriction on their associations inside the home.32
The zoning ordinance does not bar people who are uncongenial to the present residents.33
Whether the zoning ordinance expresses the social preferences of the residents for groups that will be congenial to them?34
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
No. The ordinance places no ban on other forms of association.35 The Dickmans leased to the six unrelated students, and the village's definition of family permits any number of related persons while limiting unrelated persons to two.36 This reflects a legislative line that is not judicially reviewable for social preferences.37
The zoning ordinance does not express the social preferences of the residents for groups that will be congenial to them.38
Whether social homogeneity is a legitimate interest of government?39
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
Yes. The ordinance advances permissible goals of restricting boarding houses, fraternity houses, noise, traffic, and parking by limiting unrelated occupants to two.40 The village of 220 homes and 700 people enacted the measure to preserve quiet seclusion and family values.41 This goal is a permissible one within the police power as recognized in prior zoning cases.42
Social homogeneity is a legitimate interest of government when pursued through reasonable zoning classifications.43
Whether the restriction of those whom the neighbors do not like trenches on the newcomers’ rights of privacy?44
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
No. The ordinance does not involve any rights of privacy.45 The six students lived in the house without restriction on their associations inside the home.46 The ordinance allows a family to entertain whomever it likes while addressing urban problems of density and noise from boarding or fraternity houses.47
The restriction does not trench on the newcomers’ rights of privacy.48
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall dissented on the ground that the ordinance burdens the students’ fundamental rights of association and privacy guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.49 He argued that the selection of one’s living companions involves choices as to the emotional, social, or economic benefits to be derived from alternative living arrangements.50 The ordinance discriminates on the basis of personal lifestyle choice by limiting unrelated persons to two while allowing any number of related persons.51
Because the ordinance is both overinclusive and underinclusive, it fails strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional despite the legitimacy of the village's density and traffic goals.52
Whether it is of no rightful concern to villagers whether the residents are married or unmarried?53
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
No. The ordinance draws a legislative line between related and unrelated persons that is reasonable.54 The six unrelated students occupied the Dickmans' house, triggering the order to remedy violations.55 The provision allowing two unrelated persons shows the classification is not aimed at marital status alone.56
It is a rightful concern of villagers whether residents are married or unmarried when the classification is rationally related to permissible zoning objectives.57
Whether the ordinance is antithetical to the Nation’s experience, ideology, and self-perception as an open, egalitarian, and integrated society?58
Economic and social legislation is upheld if reasonable, not arbitrary, and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective, provided it does not interfere with a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution such as voting, association, access to courts, or privacy.
The ordinance is not antithetical to the Nation’s experience, ideology, and self-perception as an open, egalitarian, and integrated society.62
Whether there is a cognizable case or controversy at this stage of the case?63
Existence of a case or controversy must appear at every stage of review.64 A litigant ordinarily may assert only his own constitutional rights or immunities. An exception applies where the litigant faces substantial economic injury or criminal prosecution and the interests of the litigant and others intertwine such that the others' rights cannot be vindicated without the litigant.65
No. The named tenant appellees quit the house after the lease expired and was extended, with Anne Parish and the other five students moving out.66 The lessor appellees face no demonstrated substantial economic injury or criminal prosecution on the present record.67 New tenants have not intervened in the suit.68
There is no cognizable case or controversy at this stage, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be vacated with remand for further proceedings.69
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that the tenant appellees who moved out no longer have an interest to vindicate by invalidation of the ordinance.70 He concluded that the lessor appellees do not satisfy the exception for asserting third-party rights because they face neither substantial economic loss nor clear criminal prosecution.71 Unrelated tenant groups can assert their own rights in court as the departed tenants had done, so the second requirement of the exception is not satisfied on the present record.72