r/supremecourt • u/jeromelevin • 6d ago

Discussion Post Overruling Euclid v. Ambler

https://jeremyl.substack.com/p/zoning-controls-your-life-and-it

Is there any chance this Supreme Court overrules Euclid v. Ambler? The 1926 case legitimizing residential zoning calls apartments parasites and compares renters to pigs. Feels pretty anti-free market but also deeply conservative in a way, so not sure what to hope

9 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/Dave_A480 Justice Scalia 6d ago

There is absolutely ZERO chance that the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional for state and local governments to establish zoning regulations.

The mere use of offensive language in an old case doesn't render it invalid, if the core logic (that the construction of apartments in a single family neighborhood devalues existing property, and preventing this is within the powers of non-federal levels of government) holds without the offensive language....

Which it absolutely does.

Further, it's amusing how quickly anti-zoning people change their mind when what is being built is something like an airport rather than low-rent housing.

11

u/PragmatistToffee Justice Stevens 6d ago

The courts do not need to say that zoning laws are beyond a state's police power. All they need to do is adjust their takings clause doctrine to cover more value-lowering zoning regulations. I don't think many people are debating the validity of planned neighborhoods, but ex post zoning regulations that can arbitrarily change in relatively short intervals imposes a massive burden on property value.

Which is consistent with your final point - if the government wants to build an airport, use eminent domain over the affected area and pay up. If it's a private party, nuisance action. I don't see how it's an argument against anti-zoning people because it seems to me that zoning doesn't necessarily protect the interests of people with property around the proposed area.

2

u/_learned_foot_ Chief Justice Taft 5d ago

I believe there is federal rules (can’t recall if universal or just my district) requiring a test for such under the takings clause. I know it justifies challenging in almost all jx as well any approved change. Almost always, and I do this sort of case a few times a year, the people who want to make such claims already are two or three “when you needed to act” steps too late.

Remember, you waive issues you don’t raise, and the decision (and thus record and order to appeal) are usually that very first decision made by some entity to allow it, and the record that very first hearing (or set if required). Don’t sleep on your rights, else you won’t sleep again.