City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., et al.
The Court, applying rational basis review, struck down a city zoning ordinance as applied to a group home for intellectually disabled people, while declining to treat intellectually disabled people as a quasi-suspect or suspect class.· AI-written
473 U.S. 432 · No. 84-468 · 1984 term · Burger Court
Decided Jul 1, 1985 · argued Mar 18, 1985, reargued Apr 23, 1985
Economic activity · Zoning: constitutionality of such ordinances, or restrictions on owners' or lessors' use of real property
Struck down a local ordinance
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and overturned or set aside the rest.
City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against intellectually disabled people.
In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for intellectually disabled people. The city of Cleburne, Texas refused to grant CLC a permit on the basis of a municipal zoning ordinance. CLC then sued the City of Cleburne on the theory that the denial of the permit violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights of CLC and their potential residents.
Applying rational basis review, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as applied to CLC. The Court declined to rule that intellectually disabled people were a quasi-suspect or suspect class.
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 1984 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallWrote a concurrence
John StevensWrote a concurrence
William BrennanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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
- City of Cleburne, Texas, et al.City, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit (Texas)
- Respondent
- Cleburne Living Center, Inc., et al.Retarded person, or mental incompetent
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose 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 (equal protection)
- 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.
- Jul 1, 1985DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. City of Cleburne, Texas, et al. lost.
- Apr 23, 1985RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Mar 18, 1985ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Northern U.S. District 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
- Agins et ux. v. City of Tiburon447 U.S. 255Jun 10, 1980 · 447 U.S. 255Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio431 U.S. 494May 31, 1977 · 431 U.S. 494Economic activity5–45–4 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.