Ferguson v. City of Fargo
2016 ND 194
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Fargo enacted Ordinance 4818 (May 2012) after historic flooding to restrict new construction within two river setback zones (MDZS and LDZS) along the Red, Wild Rice, and Sheyenne Rivers to protect health, safety, private property, and city infrastructure.
- Ordinance generally prohibits construction in setback zones but allows owners of vacant property platted before the ordinance’s effective date to apply for a waiver to construct; owners of unplatted parcels may not apply for waivers.
- Edward and Lavonna Ferguson own an unplatted 6-acre parcel partially within the setbacks; their waiver request to develop duplexes was denied because the parcel was unplatted.
- Fergusons sued, claiming the ordinance’s distinction between platted and unplatted land violates equal protection (N.D. Const. art. I, § 21 and U.S. Const. amend. XIV); district court ruled the distinction irrational and declared the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to them.
- Fargo appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed the ordinance under the rational basis equal protection standard and considered Fargo’s stated legitimate interest in limiting new construction to reduce flood-related damage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 4818’s distinction between platted and unplatted property violates equal protection under the rational-basis test | Fergusons: The classification is arbitrary; platting does not change land’s flood or slumping risk, so denying waivers to unplatted parcels is not rationally related to flood-protection goals | Fargo: Distinction is rational because platted lots are finite, have undergone prior municipal review (showing intent to develop), and limiting waivers to platted lots limits uncertainty and exposure | Held: Reversed district court — the distinction is rationally related to Fargo’s legitimate interest in limiting new construction near rivers and satisfies rational-basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- Teigen v. State, 749 N.W.2d 505 (N.D. 2008) (standards for reviewing constitutionality and presumption of constitutionality)
- McCrothers Corp. v. City of Mandan, 728 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 2007) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Haugland v. City of Bismarck, 818 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2012) (rational-basis review does not require government to articulate purpose contemporaneously)
- Hamich, Inc. v. State ex rel. Clayburgh, 564 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 1997) (explaining equal protection and rational-basis application)
- Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1976) (describing the relaxed nature of rational-basis review)
- Best Products Co., Inc. v. Spaeth, 461 N.W.2d 91 (N.D. 1990) (constitutional questions are questions of law fully reviewable on appeal)