Young v. Clarendon Township was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, William Young, and the defendant, Clarendon Township, over the ownership of a piece of land. Young claimed that he had purchased the land from the township in 1876, but the township argued that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by the township board. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Young, finding that the sale was valid and that he was the rightful owner of the land. The Court held that the township had no authority to invalidate the sale, as it had not been approved by the board. The Court also held that the township was liable for damages for interfering with Young's ownership of the land. The decision in Young v. Clarendon Township established the principle that a municipality cannot invalidate a sale of land without the approval of its board. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over the ownership of land.

In the Supreme Court case Young v. Clarendon Township, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted the plain language of Michigan’s zoning ordinance and failed to consider its purpose. He noted that while it was true that there were no specific provisions for churches or religious institutions in the ordinance, this did not mean they were excluded from consideration as potential uses of land within Clarendon Township. Rather, he argued that such uses should be considered under “other similar purposes” listed in Section 4-1(b) of the ordinance. In addition, Scalia pointed out that even if one assumed arguendo (for argument's sake)that churches and religious institutions were not included among those other similar purposes listed in Section 4-1(b), then they would still be allowed under Section 5-2(a)(3). This section provides for special exceptions when certain criteria are met; thus allowing churches and religious institutions to potentially use land within Clarendon Township despite their exclusion from explicit mention elsewhere in the ordinance.