01-1269 Cuyahoga Falls, et al., v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, et al.

Listen to this article

Respondents have not presented an equal protection claim that can survive summary judgment. Proof of racially discriminatory intent is required to show an Equal Protection Clause violation. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265. Because respondents claim injury from the referendum petitioning process, not from the referendum itself-which never went into effect-cases in which this Court has subjected enacted, discretionary measures to equal protection scrutiny and treated decisionmakers’ statements as evidence of intent, see e.g., Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448, are inapposite. Neither of the official acts respondents challenge reflects the intent required to support equal protection liability. In submitting the referendum petition to the public, the City acted pursuant to the requirement of its charter, which sets out a facially neutral petitioning procedure, and the city engineer, in refusing to issue the permits, performed a nondiscretionary, ministerial act consistent with the City Charter. Respondents point to no evidence suggesting that these acts were themselves motivated by racial animus. While they and the Sixth Circuit cite evidence of allegedly discriminatory voter sentiment, statements made by private individuals during a citizen-driven petition drive do not, in and of themselves, constitute state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. And respondents did not offer evidence that the private motives behind the referendum drive are fairly attributable to the state. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004. In fact, by adhering to charter procedures, city officials enabled public debate on the referendum to take place, thus advancing significant First Amendment interests. Respondents’ alternate theory-that city officials acted in concert with private citizens to prevent the complex from being built because of the race and family status of the likely residents-was not addressed below and apparently was disavowed by respondents at oral argument. Moreover, respondents never articulated a cognizable legal claim on such grounds.

263 F.3d 627, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Local effect:

The issue has not previously been considered by the Seventh Circuit.

O’Connor, J.; Scalia, J.