Case brief summary
Cities can create zoning laws dividing land into use areas if the rules reasonably support public health, safety, or welfare. Courts should not throw out an entire zoning law over small uncertain parts.
Facts
Euclid, Ohio passed a zoning law dividing the village into areas limiting building types like homes, shops, or factories. Ambler Realty's land was zoned to block industrial or commercial use, lowering its value.
Procedural history
Ambler Realty sued in federal court to block the ordinance as unconstitutional. The district court agreed and ordered the village to stop enforcing it. The village appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Does a comprehensive zoning ordinance that restricts how land can be used violate the due process clause, which protects against government taking property or liberty unfairly, by lowering property value without a valid public safety reason?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the zoning ordinance, looked at as a whole, was a valid use of government power and reversed the lower court's decision blocking it.
Reasoning
As cities grow more crowded, governments need power to separate different land uses to protect health and safety. Since reasonable people could disagree, courts should trust lawmakers' judgment instead of second-guessing it.
Opinions
Majority (Sutherland): Zoning ordinances are valid if there is a reasonable, debatable basis for believing they protect public health, safety, or welfare, even if some parts might later be challenged.
Dissent (Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler): These three justices dissented without providing a written explanation of their reasoning.