City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
426 U.S. 668, 49 L. Ed. 2d 132, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 186 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A city charter provision requiring land use changes to be ratified by a popular referendum does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because a referendum is a reservation of legislative power by the people, not an unconstitutional delegation of that power.
Facts:
- Forest City Enterprises, Inc. acquired an eight-acre parcel of land in the city of Eastlake, Ohio.
- At the time of purchase, the land was zoned for 'light industrial' uses.
- In May 1971, Forest City applied to the Eastlake City Planning Commission to rezone the parcel to permit the construction of a multifamily, high-rise apartment building.
- The Planning Commission recommended the zoning change to the City Council.
- While the application was pending, Eastlake voters amended the city charter to require that any land use changes approved by the City Council must be ratified by a 55% majority in a public referendum.
- The Eastlake City Council approved the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone Forest City's property.
- The proposed zoning change was subsequently submitted to the voters in a referendum but failed to secure the required 55% approval.
Procedural Posture:
- Forest City Enterprises, Inc. filed an action in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas (a trial court), seeking to declare the city charter's referendum provision invalid.
- While the case was pending, the zoning change for Forest City's property was defeated in a referendum.
- The Court of Common Pleas sustained the charter provision.
- Forest City appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Forest City then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which reversed the lower courts.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that the referendum provision was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power that violated the Due Process Clause.
- The City of Eastlake appealed the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 charter provision requiring that any zoning change approved by the city council also be approved by a 55% majority in a popular referendum constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A city charter provision requiring a referendum for zoning changes does not violate the Due Process Clause because it is a reservation of power by the people, not a delegation of power. The non-delegation doctrine, which requires legislative delegations to be accompanied by discernible standards, is inapplicable where the people reserve power to themselves rather than delegating it to a regulatory body. The Court reasoned that since all power derives from the people, they may reserve the final say on legislative matters. The Court distinguished prior cases like Eubank and Roberge, which struck down ordinances that delegated power to a narrow segment of the community, by emphasizing that a referendum involves the entire electorate. If the substantive result of a referendum is arbitrary and capricious, it may be challenged under the standard set in Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., but the referendum process itself is a constitutionally permissible exercise of democratic governance.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
Yes. This procedure is fundamentally unfair and violates due process. While referendums are appropriate for generally applicable legislative questions, using a 'spot' referendum to decide the status of a single small parcel owned by a single person is improper. This technique allows local governments to bypass normal protective procedures that are designed to resolve issues affecting individual property rights and denies the affected person a realistic opportunity to be heard.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The procedure employed by Eastlake is fundamentally unfair and violates the Due Process Clause. The right to apply for a zoning amendment is an aspect of property ownership that is protected by due process, which requires a fair procedure. There is a critical distinction between adopting a comprehensive citywide plan (a legislative act) and deciding on the use of a specific parcel (an adjudicative act). The latter requires a resolution on the merits based on articulable standards, not a popular vote, which is an unacceptable method of adjudicating individual rights. A city-wide referendum on a single parcel is manifestly unreasonable because it submits the decision to thousands of voters with no interest or knowledge of the property, leading to government by caprice rather than by reason.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of direct democracy in the context of zoning and land use regulation. It clearly distinguishes between a challenge to the referendum process itself, which is upheld as a valid reservation of legislative power, and a challenge to the substantive outcome of a zoning decision, which may still be brought if the result is arbitrary. The ruling rejects the characterization of specific parcel rezonings as purely 'adjudicative' acts requiring quasi-judicial procedures, instead affirming their legislative nature. This creates a significant potential hurdle for developers, who may now face the challenge of securing approval not only from planning officials but also from the general electorate.
