Constitutional
Law Class Notes
Here
is the comparison to Beazer:
|
Mentally
retarded |
Recovering
drug addicts |
Housing |
|
? |
Jobs |
? |
Beazer |
There
was a proposed home for the mentally retarded in the city. The city required a special permit to have
such a home in this particular neighborhood.
The city doesn’t want that home there, and they invoke a certain city
ordinance. How does this case get to the
Supreme Court? What’s the federal constitutional
issue? The key point of an equal
protection analysis is to find the alleged discrimination. There is a special permit required for a home
for the mentally retarded, but not for certain other groups. Like what?
Well, the same house could be used for a frat or sorority or nursing
home. You could have a lot of stuff
there, but not mentally retarded
people.
What
is the basic holding of the Court with respect to this claim? They decide that the mentally retarded
shouldn’t be a quasi-suspect classification, however,
they find that in this case in particular the denial of the permit doesn’t have
a rational basis and thus is unconstitutional.
There
are two parts to the inquiry: (1) What level of
scrutiny applies? The Court doesn’t
apply strict scrutiny. The Court only
applies the rational basis test. (2) In
this particular case, the discrimination is no good.
The
language of suspect and quasi-suspect classification is a pet peeve of
Foley. It’s the classification in the law that is considered suspicious or suspect when
you have heightened or intermediate scrutiny.
We’re not saying that mentally retarded people are “suspect”. It’s sort of an inelegant,
colloquial shorthand. For Foley’s
purposes, don’t use the term “suspect class”.
Use the term “suspect classification”.
Let’s
look at the part of the holding where they say that they aren’t going to apply
heightened scrutiny. Why not? This is the opposite of what the Fifth
Circuit decided. Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun would have applied intermediate scrutiny for laws
that treat the mentally retarded differently from others. What is the Court’s reasoning?
They
say that mentally retarded people really
are different from other people so that there is a rational reason for
treating them differently in the law, at least from time to time. Compare their situation to blind people. Historically, some laws that have treated the
mentally retarded differently have been based on prejudice, but not all such laws have been bad. On the other hand, most laws that regulate on the basis of race or gender have had an
invidious character. Why not treat
mental retardation laws the same as gender discrimination laws as opposed to
like laws discriminating between opticians and optometrists? The Court says that the legislation over time
related to the mentally retarded tried to protect them rather than hurt
them. The Court is concerned that to
impose heightened review would discourage legislation that would benefit the
mentally retarded.
The
Court will start with the presumption that these laws are valid.
There
are two more points that the Court made.
The Court says that the mentally retarded are adequately represented
politically. The Court seems to care
about the political dynamic here. Whether
a group has political power in the legislature is a factor for the Court in
deciding whether judicial intervention is necessary. The Court doesn’t claim that the mentally
retarded will be able to exercise power by voting or being in the legislature,
but there is a sense that people who are not retarded will take care of their “less
fortunate” neighbors and fellow citizens.
This is sort of a “paternalistic” attitude: we can count on ordinary
citizens and legislators to act with good will concerns mental retardation
issues.
The
Court also says that if you must subject laws related to mental retardation to
higher scrutiny, they claim you’ll have to bring in lots of other
classifications.
Does
There
are certain state areas where more deference is given to the states or other institutions,
like in prisons or in a military context.
The
whole other part of this case: we know the rational basis test applies, but the
law flunks the test? How come? Normally, most laws don’t flunk the rational basis test after the New Deal revolution of
1937. The rational basis test is kind of
a way to bend over backwards to support the government.
How
did the city try to justify the denial of the permit? They try to claim that other citizens are
afraid of the mentally retarded. The
Court says no way! You can’t relegate a
whole class of people to a certain area just because people don’t like
them. That’s an illegitimate reason under the Equal Protection Clause! That’s exactly what the Equal Protection
Clause is designed to quash! You have to
evaluate both the ends and the
relationship of the means to the ends.
But this goal is terrible in itself!
It’s prejudice!
The
city’s lawyers said that it was a problem that the home was across from a
junior high school and they thought the students would harass the mentally retarded
persons. The Court says that’s not
legitimate either! The school across the
street has 30 mentally retarded students itself! It also smacks of bigotry. If the junior high kids are mean, that’s ill
will, and the government can’t discriminate on the basis of the ill will of its
own citizens. Imagine if we were talking
about race instead of mental retardation!
If one group is really mean to another, you have to crack down on the
mean people!
The
city’s lawyers said that the home was on a floodplain, and they were concerned
about the residents in the case of a flood.
It was a 500 year floodplain.
That means the statistical chance is that a flood will tend to occur
once every 500 years! That’s a very slim
explanation. Very, very slim. Is this an invalid justification under the
rational basis test? Not really; it’s
valid, but it’s not rationally related.
The floodplain argument, as silly as it is, flunks for a different
reason. It’s a safety-related reason,
not based on hatred or irrational prejudice in the way the first two are. If the goal is remotely legitimate, why are
the means no good? The means are no good
because the ordinance at issue allows nursing homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals, and so on at the same location.
The city supposedly thinks that old people or sick people would have no
problem getting away from a flood while the mentally retarded would. The Court says that to differentiate between the
retarded and other folks who suffer from the same sorts of conditions, it is
irrational!
The
last point that the city made was to say that they were worried about how many
people live in one house. The Court said
that you could have an across-the-board rule, or zone for single-family
dwellings. But instead, this city allows
stuff like fraternities and sororities, so it’s obviously not concerned about
just the numbers of people.