George Washington University v. District of Columbia
United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit
391 F. Supp. 2d 109 (2005)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
George Washington University (GW) (plaintiff) was a private university located in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, D.C. (DC) (defendant). GW submitted to the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) its campus plan for years 2000 to 2010. The BZA approved the plan with certain conditions, including that GW house 70 percent of its 8,000 undergraduate students on campus and house every undergraduate it enrolled over 8,000 either on campus or outside of the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. These conditions were an attempt by the BZA to prevent the livability and residential nature of the Foggy Bottom neighborhood from being compromised by an influx of students living off campus. The conditions did not cause a substantial loss in value to GW’s property. GW had always been on notice that its Foggy Bottom property was subject to DC’s zoning ordinances. The district court ruled that the BZA final order violated GW’s right to substantive due process. Both parties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that the BZA’s final order was not entirely unconstitutional. The case was remanded for the district court to rule on GW’s remaining claims of an unconstitutional taking, denial of equal protection, and denial of its students’ rights to equal protection.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Oberdorfer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.