227 A.3d 980
R.I.2020Background
- Providence enacted Ordinance No. 455 (the "Amendment") restricting non-owner‑occupied single‑family dwellings in R-1A and R-1 districts to no more than three "college students" (defined as persons enrolled at a college or university who commute to campus).
- Federal Hill Capital (owner of 15 Oakdale St.) and four student tenants sued the City in Superior Court, challenging the Amendment under the Rhode Island Constitution’s Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, applying rational‑basis review; Federal Hill appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs argued (1) college students are a suspect class, (2) a fundamental right exists to choose one’s living companions/arrangements, and (3) the ordinance is arbitrary, under‑ and over‑inclusive and not rationally related to legitimate goals.
- The City defended the Amendment as a reasonable zoning measure to preserve neighborhood residential character, public health and welfare, and consistent with its Comprehensive Plan.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: students are not a suspect class, no fundamental right was implicated, and the Amendment survives rational‑basis review as rationally related to legitimate municipal interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny (are students a suspect class?) | College students suffer discrimination based on educational status and merit heightened scrutiny | Students lack the historical/political characteristics of a suspect class; ordinary scrutiny applies | Students are not a suspect class; rational‑basis review governs |
| Whether a fundamental right to choose living companions/arrangements exists | Individuals have a fundamental right to live with whomever they choose that triggers strict scrutiny | No established fundamental right; zoning regulation falls within legitimate police power | No fundamental right found; Village of Belle Terre and precedent control |
| Whether the Amendment violates Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process (rationality of law) | Ordinance is ineffective, under‑inclusive (grandfathered multifamily units) and over‑inclusive (applies to part‑time/graduate students) and therefore arbitrary | City had a legitimate interest in preserving neighborhood character; any conceivable rational basis suffices; legislative findings and public complaints support the objective | The Amendment is rationally related to legitimate municipal objectives; equal protection and due process claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1974) (upheld zoning limit on unrelated occupants; no fundamental right implicated)
- Kirsch v. Prince George’s County, 626 A.2d 372 (Md. 1993) (struck similar student‑housing ordinance under equal protection; contrasted in the opinion)
- Mackie v. State, 936 A.2d 588 (R.I. 2007) (describes rational‑basis standard and burden on challenger)
- In re Advisory from the Governor, 633 A.2d 664 (R.I. 1993) (framework for choosing level of scrutiny under RI Constitution)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 610 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1980) (struck unrelated‑persons rule under California privacy provision; distinguished by Rhode Island Court)