Connection lost
Server error
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A village’s refusal to rezone land for a low-income housing project did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court held that a racially disproportionate impact is insufficient; plaintiffs must prove that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the government’s decision.
Legal Significance: This case established the “Arlington Heights factors,” a crucial evidentiary framework for proving discriminatory purpose in Equal Protection Clause challenges. It clarified that while disproportionate impact is relevant, proof that a discriminatory purpose was a “motivating factor” is required to establish a constitutional violation.
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS v. METROPOLITAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC), a nonprofit developer, sought to build Lincoln Green, a racially integrated, low- and moderate-income townhouse development in Arlington Heights, a predominantly white Chicago suburb. The project required the Village to rezone a 15-acre parcel from a single-family to a multiple-family classification. The Village Plan Commission held public hearings where community opposition arose, focusing on the project’s inconsistency with the Village’s zoning plan and potential to lower property values. The Commission recommended denying the request, citing the Village’s established “buffer policy”—which designated multi-family zoning to act as a transition between single-family and commercial or industrial areas—and the desire to protect the single-family character of the neighborhood. The Village Board of Trustees adopted the recommendation and denied the rezoning. MHDC and individual plaintiffs sued, alleging the denial was racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The decision had a clear disproportionate impact, as racial minorities constituted 40% of the eligible tenant pool in the Chicago area but a very small fraction of Arlington Heights’ population.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is proof of a racially disproportionate impact, without proof that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor, sufficient to establish that a facially neutral zoning decision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The Village’s refusal to rezone did not violate the Equal Protection Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, con
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is proof of a racially disproportionate impact, without proof that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor, sufficient to establish that a facially neutral zoning decision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This case provides the definitive, practical framework for litigating Equal Protection claims Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Legal Rule
Official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Du
Legal Analysis
Reaffirming its recent holding in Washington v. Davis, the Court clarified the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To prove a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff