Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)

Citation: Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Parent Document: Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Original Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0405_0056_ZS.html ↗

Full Text

1,230 chars

In sum, the double-bond procedure is landlord legislation, not evenly weighted between his proprietary interest in the property and the rights of the tenants. Over a third of our population lives in apartments or other rented housing. 4 The home whether rented or owned—is the very heart of privacy in modern America. Mr. Justice Marshall in Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45 , 52 , 90 S.Ct. 200, 203, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (dissenting), spoke of the protection afforded 'fundamental interests' when it came to classifications made by legislatures. In that case it was the franchise. Race is in the same category (McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 , 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222); so are wealth (Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655); and interstate travel (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600). Classifications that burden, impinge, or discriminate against such fundamental interests 5 are 'highly suspect.' McDonald v. Board of Elections, 394 U.S. 802 , 807 , 89 S.Ct. 1404, 1407, 22 L.Ed.2d 739. 39

Other Sections in This Document (148)

Full Text