James v. Valtierra
402 US 137, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 108, 28 L. Ed. 2d 678 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state constitutional provision requiring a mandatory public referendum before a low-rent public housing project can be developed does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so long as the provision does not rest on distinctions based on a suspect classification like race.
Facts:
- The United States Housing Act of 1937 provided federal funding to state and local agencies for slum clearance and low-rent housing projects.
- In response, California created local public housing authorities to utilize this federal funding.
- In 1950, the California Supreme Court held that local government decisions to seek federal aid for housing were administrative acts, not legislative ones, and thus were not subject to the state's referendum process.
- Following this decision, California voters amended the state constitution by adopting Article XXXIV, which mandated that no low-rent housing project could be developed or acquired by a public body until it was approved by a majority of voters in a local community election.
- In San Jose and San Mateo County, proposed low-rent housing projects were defeated in referendums held pursuant to Article XXXIV.
- As a result, local housing authorities in these areas were unable to apply for federal funds, and plaintiffs eligible for such housing were unable to obtain it.
Procedural Posture:
- Citizens eligible for low-cost public housing filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that California Constitution Article XXXIV was unconstitutional and requested an injunction against its enforcement.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court held that Article XXXIV denied the plaintiffs equal protection of the laws and enjoined its enforcement.
- The City Council of San Jose and one of its members (appellants) filed separate appeals from the District Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear both appeals.
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 state constitutional provision that requires a local public referendum for the approval of any low-rent public housing project violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
No, the state constitutional provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A law requiring a referendum for low-income housing is constitutional because it is facially neutral and does not create a suspect classification based on race. The Court distinguished this case from Hunter v. Erickson, where a law was struck down because it imposed special burdens explicitly on racial minorities, triggering strict scrutiny. Article XXXIV, in contrast, applies to any low-rent housing project, regardless of the race of its potential occupants, and there is no evidence that it is aimed at a racial minority. Furthermore, California's requirement of a referendum for low-income housing is not unique; the state also mandates referendums for other significant matters like constitutional amendments and the issuance of general obligation bonds. The provision is a valid exercise of democratic decision-making, allowing communities a voice in matters that affect local finances and development, and the fact that a procedure disadvantages a particular group does not, by itself, constitute a denial of equal protection.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the state constitutional provision violates the Equal Protection Clause. The provision, on its face, constitutes invidious discrimination by explicitly singling out "persons of low income" to bear a unique procedural burden not imposed on any other group seeking publicly assisted housing, such as the aged or veterans. This creates an explicit classification based on poverty, which should be considered a suspect classification demanding exacting judicial scrutiny. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination between 'rich' and 'poor' as such, and this law is not a general statute that happens to affect the poor more harshly, but one that directly targets them. The majority's focus on the absence of racial discrimination ignores the plain fact that the law discriminates on the basis of wealth, which tramples the core values of the Equal Protection Clause.
Analysis:
This decision established that poverty is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause, meaning that laws that disproportionately affect the poor are not subject to strict scrutiny. Consequently, such laws will generally be upheld under the less stringent rational basis review, so long as they do not involve a fundamental right or a suspect class like race. The ruling validates the use of direct democracy mechanisms like referendums, even if they create procedural hurdles for social welfare programs, provided they are facially neutral regarding suspect classifications. This makes it more difficult to challenge facially neutral housing and zoning laws on equal protection grounds, even when they have a clear disparate impact on low-income individuals.
Unlock the full brief for James v. Valtierra