Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester
157 N.H. 152, 949 A.2d 681 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A city's zoning ordinance that creates a classification requiring intermediate scrutiny violates state equal protection if the city fails to demonstrate that the ban is substantially related to an important governmental objective through actual evidence, rather than mere speculation or post-hoc justifications.
Facts:
- Community Resources for Justice, Inc. (CRJ) is a non-profit organization that operates federal halfway houses under contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- CRJ owns a building on Elm Street in Manchester and sought approval to use it as a federal halfway house.
- The City of Manchester (City) denied CRJ's request for approval, stating that the proposed use constituted a 'correctional facility' as defined by its zoning ordinance, a use prohibited in all city zoning districts.
- The City conceded that its zoning ban on correctional facilities does not apply to state-run institutions.
- The trial court found that CRJ's proposed federal halfway house would provide an important social benefit and would not pose a safety risk to the neighborhood.
Procedural Posture:
- Community Resources for Justice, Inc. (CRJ) challenged the City of Manchester's zoning ordinance, arguing it violated, among other things, its federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard the first appeal, clarifying that intermediate scrutiny under the State Constitution requires legislation to be substantially related to an important governmental objective, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this standard.
- Following remand, the Superior Court (trial court) held a hearing to determine if the ordinance violated the Zoning and Enabling Act or equal protection.
- The trial court found the ordinance unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of police power, violated CRJ's equal protection rights under the New Hampshire Constitution, and granted CRJ a 'builder's remedy'.
- The City of Manchester appealed the trial court's order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
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's zoning ordinance, which prohibits federal halfway houses in all districts but does not apply to state-run institutions, violate the state constitutional right to equal protection when the city fails to provide evidence that the ban is substantially related to an important governmental interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Broderick, C.J.
Yes, the City of Manchester's zoning ordinance, as applied to CRJ, violates CRJ's equal protection rights under the New Hampshire Constitution because the City failed to demonstrate that its absolute ban on federal halfway houses is substantially related to furthering an important governmental interest. The Court reiterated that intermediate scrutiny under the State Constitution requires the challenged legislation to be substantially related to an important governmental objective, with the burden of proof resting with the government. The City argued that preventing a concentration of 'undesirable' land uses was an important objective. However, the trial court found, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the City presented no factual evidence beyond 'mere speculation' to support its concerns that federal prisoners would pose a threat, engage in recidivism, or adversely affect property values. The Court emphasized that the government 'may not rely upon justifications that are hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation, nor upon overbroad generalizations.' In contrast, the record contained substantial evidence of overwhelming support for the proposed halfway house from law enforcement and community leaders. Therefore, the City failed to meet its burden. The Court also affirmed the trial court's grant of a 'builder's remedy' to CRJ, finding that the record supported the conclusion that CRJ's proposed use was reasonable and consistent with sound zoning concepts, and that the remedy was appropriate to compensate CRJ for its efforts and ensure the housing would be built.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the New Hampshire Supreme Court's robust application of intermediate scrutiny under the State Constitution, demanding concrete evidence from municipalities to justify zoning classifications that differentiate between similar entities. It signifies that generalized fears or speculative concerns are insufficient to uphold a blanket prohibition on a particular land use, especially when there's evidence of community benefit and safety. The ruling also highlights the importance of the 'builder's remedy' as a mechanism to not only rectify unconstitutional zoning but also ensure that a successful plaintiff can realize their project, thereby incentivizing challenges to unlawful ordinances and preventing municipal obstruction.
