Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio
The Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited Inez Moore, a black grandmother, from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional.
431 U.S. 494 · No. 75-6289 · 1976 term · Burger Court
Decided May 31, 1977 · argued Nov 2, 1976
Economic activity · Zoning: constitutionality of such ordinances, or restrictions on owners' or lessors' use of real property
Struck down a local ordinance
Majority opinion: Lewis Powell
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed. Moore won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ohio appellate court, and its own ruling ends the case.
Moore was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited Inez Moore, a black grandmother, from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ruled that the East Cleveland zoning ordinance violated substantive due process because it intruded too far upon the "sanctity of the family." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit." Scholars have recognized Moore as one of several Supreme Court decisions that established "a constitutional right to family integrity."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1976 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Lewis PowellWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanWrote a concurrence
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Potter StewartWrote a dissent
Warren BurgerWrote a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- MooreOwner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
- Respondent
- City of East Cleveland, OhioCity, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit (Ohio)
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A local ordinance, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 31, 1977DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed. Moore won.
- Nov 2, 1976ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Ohio appellate court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Ohio trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
5 other argued cases since 1946 on zoning: constitutionality of such ordinances, or restrictions on owners' or lessors' use of real property, newest first.
- Wilkins v. United States598 U.S. 152Mar 28, 2023 · 598 U.S. 152Economic activity6–36–3 band
- City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., et al.473 U.S. 432Jul 1, 1985 · 473 U.S. 432Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Agins et ux. v. City of Tiburon447 U.S. 255Jun 10, 1980 · 447 U.S. 255Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- City of Eastlake et al. v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.426 U.S. 668Jun 21, 1976 · 426 U.S. 668Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Village of Belle Terre et al. v. Boraas et al.416 U.S. 1Apr 1, 1974 · 416 U.S. 1Economic activity7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.