Moore v. City of East Cleveland
Facts
The City of East Cleveland, Ohio, enacted a zoning ordinance that limited occupancy of a single-family dwelling to members of a narrowly defined “family.” The ordinance recognized only a limited set of familial relationships, primarily the nuclear family, and excluded extended family arrangements.
Inez Moore lived with her son and two grandsons. The grandsons were cousins (not brothers), and therefore did not fall within the ordinance’s definition of a single “family.” As a result, Moore was cited for violating the housing code and ordered to either move one of the grandsons out or face criminal penalties.
Moore refused to comply and was convicted. She challenged the ordinance, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with her fundamental right to live with her extended family.
The lower courts upheld the ordinance, reasoning that the city had a legitimate interest in regulating housing to prevent overcrowding and preserve neighborhood character.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether a zoning ordinance that restricts occupancy of a home to narrowly defined family members violates the Due Process Clause by interfering with family living arrangements.
Rule
The Due Process Clause protects certain fundamental liberty interests, including the right of family members to live together, and laws that intrude on these interests must be closely scrutinized.
Application
The Court emphasized that the Constitution protects not only individual rights but also certain deeply rooted family relationships. It recognized that the concept of “family” extends beyond the nuclear model and includes extended family arrangements that have long been part of American tradition.
The Court distinguished this case from prior zoning cases that upheld occupancy restrictions aimed at unrelated individuals. Here, the ordinance did not simply regulate density or unrelated cohabitation; it directly intruded into the structure of the family by preventing close relatives from living together.
The Court found that the city’s ordinance was overly restrictive and not sufficiently tailored to its stated goals. While the city argued that it sought to prevent overcrowding and maintain neighborhood stability, the ordinance was underinclusive and overinclusive. It allowed some families to live together regardless of size while prohibiting others based solely on arbitrary distinctions between family members.
The Court also noted that the ordinance interfered with longstanding family traditions, such as extended family members living together for mutual support. By forcing Moore to choose between her grandchildren, the law imposed a significant burden on her liberty.
Given the importance of family relationships and the intrusive nature of the ordinance, the Court applied heightened scrutiny and concluded that the law was not justified by the city’s interests.
Holding
Yes. The zoning ordinance violated the Due Process Clause by impermissibly interfering with the right of family members to live together.
Court
This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional.
Exam Notes
- Recognizes extended family living as a protected liberty interest
- Part of substantive due process (family autonomy) line of cases
- Distinguishes nuclear vs. extended family protections
- Government cannot arbitrarily define “family” too narrowly
- Often tested with zoning / housing regulations
- Applies heightened scrutiny to family-related rights
- Good comparison with Belle Terre (upheld restriction on unrelated persons)
- Shows protection of tradition + family structure under Due Process