City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center: The Majority Opinion

A Dispute in Cleburne

In 1985, the Supreme Court heard a case that would define the legal status of people with disabilities for decades. The Cleburne Living Center wanted to open a group home for thirteen residents with intellectual disabilities. However, the city of Cleburne denied their permit, even though similar group homes for others were allowed. This denial sparked a major constitutional battle over the Equal Protection Clause.

Choosing the Level of Scrutiny

To decide the case, the Court had to pick a level of judicial review. The lower court thought intellectual disability should be a 'quasi-suspect' class, triggering intermediate scrutiny. But Justice White and the majority disagreed, choosing instead to apply the most deferential standard: the rational basis test. This choice shifted the entire burden of proof.

Applying the Carolene Factors

Justice White reached back to the famous Footnote 4 of Carolene Products to justify this choice. He argued that unlike race, disability is often relevant to a state's legitimate interests because of functional differences. Furthermore, he pointed to recent civil rights laws as proof that the group was not 'politically powerless.' Because the democratic process seemed to be working, he saw no need for 'searching judicial inquiry.'

The Murgia Precedent

The majority relied heavily on the precedent set in Massachusetts Board of Retirement versus Murgia. In that case, the Court held that age is not a suspect classification because it is a characteristic the state may legitimately consider. White argued that intellectual disability is similar: it's a real difference that lawmakers are better equipped to handle than judges. This comparison reinforced the idea that not all disadvantaged groups deserve special protection.

The Slippery Slope

A primary fear for the Court was the 'slippery slope.' If they granted special status here, where would it stop? The elderly? The mentally ill? The infirm? White also stressed that courts lack the expertise to make these technical policy choices. He believed these nuanced distinctions should stay in the hands of elected legislatures.

Recap: The Majority's Path

Let's pause to review the majority's logic. Remember, the Court refused to elevate the group's legal status, fearing it would open the floodgates for other groups. They stuck to the precedent that certain traits are legitimately relevant to lawmaking. Take a moment to review these key points before we look at the surprising outcome of the case.

Rational Basis 'With Bite'

Even though the Court used the lowest level of scrutiny, the city still lost. The Court found that Cleburne’s reasons—like the fear of neighbors or proximity to a school—were based on 'irrational prejudice.' This is known as 'rational basis with bite.' Because 'mere negative attitudes' are never a legitimate state interest, the ordinance was struck down as applied to the center.

Scenario: Community Character

Imagine a city denies a permit for a housing facility for veterans with PTSD, claiming it protects 'community character.' Based on Cleburne, how would a court likely analyze this? Type your thoughts in the box.