Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

429 U.S. 252 (1977)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

United States Supreme Court
429 U.S. 252 (1977)

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Facts

The Village of Arlington Heights (Arlington) (defendant), a Chicago suburb, was predominantly zoned for single-family homes. The area’s racial diversity was minimal. The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) (plaintiff), a nonprofit developer, applied to Arlington for a permit to rezone 15 acres from single-family use to multiple-family use. MHDC planned to build a housing development with 190 units for low- to middle-income residents. The development was to use federal housing subsidies that were contingent on efforts to ensure the development’s racial integration. After a public hearing, a committee recommended rejecting the permit for two main reasons. First, residents owning nearby property would experience an unanticipated decrease in property values. Second, multiple-family use was generally approved only if such housing would be a buffer between residential and commercial property, a justification inapplicable here. Permits had been previously denied for the same reasons. Arlington denied MHDC’s permit. MHDC and three Black individuals (plaintiffs), one of whom was a likely future resident of the development, sued Arlington. They alleged that the permit denial was racially discriminatory and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Fair Housing Act. The district court upheld the permit denial. However, the court of appeals reversed, finding that although not motivated by racial discrimination, the denial had racially discriminatory effects and did not serve a sufficiently compelling government interest. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Marshall, J.)

Dissent (White, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 779,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 779,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership