Warth v. Seldin

The town of Penfield (defendant), a suburb of Rochester, New York, adopted a zoning ordinance that effectively eliminated low-income and moderate-income housing. A lawsuit challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality was filed in federal court against the town of Penfield and Ira Seldin and other members of Penfield’s zoning and planning boards (collectively, the Penfield parties) (defendants). The suing parties were (1) three low-income minority residents of Rochester, who alleged that the zoning ordinance injured them by making it too expensive for them to live anywhere in Penfield; (2) Robert Warth and four other Rochester taxpayers, who alleged that the ordinance caused them to pay additional Rochester taxes to provide the low-income housing that was not available in Penfield; and (3) Metro-Act of Rochester (Metro-Act), an organization that was concerned about housing shortages in the greater Rochester area (collectively, the Rochester parties) (plaintiffs). Metro-Act alleged that its members were injured because they were also Rochester taxpayers or low-income residents of Rochester, or because they were Penfield residents who had been denied a diverse community. Two additional organizations also tried to become plaintiffs, but their requests were denied (collectively, the potential parties). One organization was the Rochester Home Builders Association (Home Builders), which represented local builders and alleged that its members had been injured by losing building opportunities and profits. The other organization was the Housing Council in the Monroe County Area (Housing Council), which represented groups that addressed housing shortages and alleged that its members had been injured because they were not able to build affordable housing and at least one member’s request to do so had been denied. The district court found that the Rochester parties and the potential parties all lacked standing to complain about the ordinance, and it dismissed the complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.