Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mt. Laurel I)
New Jersey Supreme Court
336 A.2d 713 (1975)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
The Township of Mount Laurel (defendant) enacted zoning regulations intended to benefit the township’s economic condition. To accomplish this, the regulations were openly designed to allow only residents with high incomes and few children. For instance, the regulations limited almost all residences to single-family detached homes on large lots. The few permitted apartments were expensive and either prohibited children entirely or limited the number of children per apartment. Mount Laurel’s stated intent was to reduce the amount of public resources it would need to provide, especially schools, in order to keep the tax rate lower for its high-income residents. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of Southern Burlington County (NAACP) (plaintiff) sued, arguing that the regulations were invalid because they prevented low- and moderate-income families from living in the township. The trial court declared the regulations invalid and ordered Mount Laurel to create a plan to meet the housing needs of interested low- and moderate-income people. Mount Laurel appealed. The NAACP cross-appealed, contending that the mandated plan did not go far enough. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)
Concurrence (Pashman, J.)
Concurrence (Mountain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
