The U.S. Supreme Court case Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio in 1976 revolved around a local housing ordinance that defined "family" in a narrow way to restrict the occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Ingrid Moore was found guilty by the city for violating this ordinance as she lived with her two grandsons who were cousins, not siblings - hence falling outside the city's definition of 'family'. The case reached the Supreme Court which ruled (5-4) in favor of Moore stating that her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The court held that choices about family living arrangements are part of an individual’s right to privacy and thus protected by Due Process Clause from governmental interference. This decision emphasized on constitutional protection for broader definitions and variations within familial relationships.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, Justice White argued that the city's housing ordinance did not violate constitutional rights and was a legitimate exercise of government power to regulate land use. He contended that while familial relationships are important, they do not have absolute protection from state regulation under the Constitution. The majority’s decision to strike down this law on substantive due process grounds was seen as an overreach by Justice White who believed it is up to legislatures rather than courts to make decisions about social policy unless those policies infringe upon fundamental rights which he didn't believe were at stake in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern that such judicial activism could undermine democratic processes and lead to unpredictable court rulings based on individual justices' personal views.