Yes. The town's zoning law is allowed. Just because the law makes the property less valuable doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. The Court explained that as cities grow, they need rules to keep things organized and safe. It's reasonable to separate noisy factories from quiet neighborhoods to protect people's health and quality of life. The Court famously said it's like keeping a "pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard"—some things are fine in the right place but not in the wrong one. As long as the town has good reasons for its zoning rules (like fire safety, less traffic, and quiet streets), the court won't interfere.

Three justices disagreed with the decision but didn't write a separate explanation of why.

No, it is not against the law. The city's plan is okay. The rules help keep neighborhoods safe and pleasant by controlling where businesses and factories can be built. Even though the rules might change how much some land is worth, they're not just random; they're meant to look out for everyone's health and happiness. The Court said that if people can argue about whether the rules are fair, then the city's decision should usually be respected. If there are any small parts of the plan that aren't fair, those can be dealt with later when they actually cause a problem. The Court also mentioned that what's okay for a big city might not be okay for the countryside, so it depends on the place. Keeping businesses and factories away from homes makes sense for the community's health and safety because it helps protect kids, stops crime and noise, makes it easier to fight fires and control traffic, and makes neighborhoods nicer places to live. Even if some harmless businesses get lumped in with the factories, that's not enough to make the whole plan invalid. Having a little wiggle room to make sure the rules work doesn't ruin a law that's otherwise good

I disagree with the main decision because I think the zoning rules are too vague and give too much power to the local government. This makes it hard to know if property owners are being treated fairly because the rules can change in ways that hurt their rights. While the majority trusts the city’s judgment about keeping neighborhoods safe, I worry that without clear limits, property rights could be unfairly violated. In short, I think we need clearer and stricter rules to truly protect everyone.

A zoning regulation is only unconstitutional if it is "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."

It determined that the ordinance did bear a "substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare."

—the United States Supreme Court held municipal zoning to be a permissible exercise of the police power, while in Pennsylvania Coal Co.

The Court went on to hold that "[i] f the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control."

A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard

Instead, the record demonstrates that the street frontage requirement and its imposition on GLS was a valid exercise of a generally applicable scheme to accommodate competing interests within the Township, traffic issues, and other community concerns.

—noting the line dividing valid and invalid zoning ordinances is not capable of precise delimitation but rather varies with the surrounding circumstances and stating that "[a] regulatory zoning ordinance, which would clearly be valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities

Rational basis review also applies to Due Process challenges to public health, safety, and welfare legislation such as the Smoking Bans, allowing such legislation to survive constitutional scrutiny unless Players can show that it "has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public …

No court thinks, however, that this means the state can't regulate property—can't for example enact building codes and zoning regulations even though such measures limit the property owner's right to do what he wants with his property.

The majority opinion reasoned that "[t] he record contains no evidence that the zoning regulations infringe upon any protected liberty. The [] zoning regulations affect only property interests and, therefore, need only bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare."

No. The comprehensive zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of the village's police power and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ordinance is not unconstitutional merely because it restricts land use and diminishes property values. The court found that modern urban life necessitates regulations to ensure public welfare, and zoning is a legitimate tool for achieving this. Analogizing to nuisance law, the court reasoned that zoning aims to prevent a "right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." The justifications for separating residential, business, and industrial districts—such as promoting safety, reducing traffic, preventing fires, and facilitating public services—are rationally related to the public health, safety, and general welfare. If the validity of the legislative classification is "fairly debatable," the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. The Court determined that the ordinance, in its general scope, was not clearly arbitrary or unreasonable, and therefore upheld it against a facial constitutional challenge.

The case text notes that these justices dissented but does not provide a written opinion.

No, the comprehensive zoning plan that segregates residential, business, and industrial districts does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving property owners of liberty and property without due process of law or denying them equal protection of the law. The zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power. The segregation of residential, business, and industrial districts is justified by the benefits to public welfare, including reduced congestion, fire safety, and the preservation of neighborhoods. While the ordinance may affect property values, it is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The Court emphasized that if the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes is fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. The specific provisions of the ordinance should be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them, rather than invalidating the ordinance in its entirety. The Court also noted that the line dividing valid and invalid zoning ordinances is not capable of precise delimitation and varies with the surrounding circumstances. The exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc., from residential districts, bears a rational relation to the health and safety of the community because it promotes the health and security of children, suppresses disorder, facilitates fire control and traffic regulation, and aids in preserving a favorable environment. Although some industries of an innocent character might fall within the proscribed class, this is no more than happens in respect of many practice-forbidding laws which this Court has upheld. The inclusion of a reasonable margin to insure effective enforcement will not invalidate an otherwise valid law.

No, the comprehensive zoning plan that segregates residential, business, and industrial districts does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving property owners of liberty and property without due process of law or denying them equal protection of the law. The zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power. The segregation of residential, business, and industrial districts is justified by the benefits to public welfare, including reduced congestion, fire safety, and the preservation of neighborhoods. While the ordinance may affect property values, it is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. We emphasize that if the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes is fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. The specific provisions of the ordinance should be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them, rather than invalidating the ordinance in its entirety. We also note that the line dividing valid and invalid zoning ordinances is not capable of precise delimitation and varies with the surrounding circumstances. The exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc., from residential districts bears a rational relation to the health and safety of the community because it promotes the health and security of children, suppresses disorder, facilitates fire control and traffic regulation, and aids in preserving a favorable environment. Although some industries of an innocent character might fall within the proscribed class, this is no more than happens in respect of many practice-forbidding laws which we have upheld. The inclusion of a reasonable margin to ensure effective enforcement will not invalidate an otherwise valid law.

I dissent from the majority’s judgment because the comprehensive zoning ordinance, while intended to promote public welfare, oversteps its bounds by applying an overly broad and arbitrary classification system. The dissent argues that the expansive delegation of discretion to local authorities undermines predictable property rights because it leaves owners exposed to controls that may lack precision. Unlike the majority, which defers to legislative judgment in matters of public convenience and safety, I hold that such unchecked authority compromises the due process and equal protection guarantees. Thus, the ordinance should be subject to stricter scrutiny and a more measured application to ensure that individual rights are adequately protected.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot