Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
538 U.S. 188 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A city's adherence to a facially neutral, mandatory referendum process required by its charter does not constitute a violation of the Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process Clauses, as the discriminatory motives of private citizens initiating the referendum cannot be attributed to the city when its officials are performing non-discretionary, ministerial acts.
Facts:
- Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (Buckeye), a nonprofit, purchased land in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, to build a low-income housing complex called Pleasant Meadows.
- After Buckeye submitted its site plan, some city residents expressed opposition, citing concerns about crime and the potential influx of families similar to those in the city's only African-American neighborhood.
- Despite public opposition, the city council found the plan met all zoning requirements and approved it via City Ordinance No. 48-1996.
- Following the approval, a group of citizens filed a formal petition under the city charter, which gives voters the power to approve or reject any ordinance passed by the council.
- The filing of the petition automatically stayed the implementation of the ordinance, as required by the city charter.
- Buckeye subsequently requested building permits, but the city engineer, on the advice of the city law director, denied the request because the charter prohibited the ordinance from taking effect pending the referendum.
- In a later election, the voters of Cuyahoga Falls passed the referendum, repealing the ordinance that had approved the site plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Buckeye Community Hope Foundation sued the City of Cuyahoga Falls in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for alleged constitutional violations.
- The City moved for summary judgment, which the District Court initially denied.
- After a related state court case resolved, the City again moved for summary judgment, and this time the District Court granted the motion in favor of the City on all claims.
- Buckeye, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed and that the case should proceed to trial.
- The City of Cuyahoga Falls, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by submitting a duly certified referendum petition to voters and temporarily withholding building permits as mandated by its charter, even when the citizen-led referendum may be motivated by racial animus?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. A city does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses by performing the ministerial act of administering a facially neutral referendum process required by its charter. To establish an Equal Protection violation, there must be proof of discriminatory intent on the part of the state actor. Here, the City's challenged actions—submitting the petition to the voters and refusing to issue building permits—were non-discretionary, ministerial acts performed pursuant to the city charter's requirements. The discriminatory motives of the private citizens who initiated the referendum cannot be attributed to the City, which did not enact the referendum or give effect to any alleged bias simply by following its mandatory procedures. Likewise, the City's actions did not violate substantive due process because they were not 'egregious' or 'arbitrary.' Denying the permits was an 'eminently rational directive' because the charter legally stayed the ordinance, and subjecting an administrative decision to a referendum is not, per se, arbitrary government conduct.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. I join the Court's opinion but write separately to state that even if the government's conduct had been arbitrary, it would not establish a substantive due process violation. The Due Process Clause's substantive component protects only 'fundamental liberty interests,' and freedom from delay in receiving a building permit does not qualify as such. Claims of arbitrary deprivation of nonfundamental interests should be analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause, not substantive due process. Furthermore, the challenge is procedural in nature, and there is nothing procedurally defective about conditioning a land-use permit on the outcome of a popular referendum mandated by a city charter.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the state action doctrine in the context of direct democracy mechanisms like referenda. It establishes that a municipality acting as a neutral administrator of its own mandatory, facially neutral laws is shielded from Equal Protection liability, even if the citizen-led process is fueled by discriminatory animus. The ruling places a high burden on plaintiffs to show that the government entity itself, not just private actors, possessed discriminatory intent. This protects government bodies from being held responsible for the motives of their constituents when performing non-discretionary duties, thereby distinguishing the government's role as a neutral arbiter from that of a discretionary decision-maker.
Unlock the full brief for Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation