| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The U.S. Supreme Court case County Board of Arlington County, Virginia v. Richards et al., 1977 revolved around the issue of zoning regulations and their potential infringement on property rights. The plaintiffs were homeowners in a residential area who had been denied permission to rent out rooms in their homes due to local zoning laws that prohibited such rentals without specific approval from the county board. They argued that these restrictions violated their constitutional rights by depriving them of property without due process or just compensation, as well as infringing upon equal protection under law. However, the court ruled against them stating that there was no fundamental right being infringed upon by these regulations and they did not violate any constitutionally protected class status for equal protection purposes. Furthermore, it held that land use control through zoning is a legitimate exercise of police power for public welfare objectives like maintaining neighborhood character and stability which are valid governmental interests.
In the dissenting opinion for the case County Board of Arlington County, Virginia v. Richards et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision that a zoning ordinance was unconstitutional due to its violation of equal protection rights. He argued that there was no evidence showing that this law had been enacted or maintained for discriminatory purposes against apartment dwellers. Instead, he believed it served legitimate governmental interests in preserving open spaces and reducing congestion within neighborhoods. Furthermore, he contended that previous court rulings did not establish a fundamental right to housing choice as suggested by the plaintiffs and thus should not be subjected to strict scrutiny under Equal Protection Clause analysis. Therefore, according to Rehnquist’s view, since rational basis review would have been more appropriate standard of review here given these circumstances; henceforth local government’s action should have been upheld.