Due Process. In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners of Yellowstone County, Montana, created Zoning District 17 in a rural area of the county and a planning and zoning commission for the district. The commission adopted zoning regulations, which

Question

provided, among other things, that "dwelling units" could be built only through "on-site construction." Later, county officials were unable to identify any health or safety concerns that were addressed by requiring on-site construction. There was no evidence that homes built off-site would negatively affect property values or cause harm to any other general welfare interest of the community. In December 1999, Francis and Anita Yurczyk bought two forty-acre tracts in District 17. The Yurczyks also bought a modular home and moved it onto the property the following spring. Within days, the county advised the Yurczyks that the home violated the on-site construction regulation and would have to be removed. The Yurczyks filed a suit in a Montana state court against the county, alleging in part that the zoning regulation violated their due process rights. Does the Yurczyks' claim relate to procedural or substantive due process rights? What standard would the court apply to determine whether the regulation is constitutional? How should the court rule? Explain.

Answer 1

Due process
The court agreed with the Yurczyks' reasoning, as regarded their substantive due process rights, that the on-site construction requirement did "not have a substantial bearing upon the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community" and "was not based upon a legitimate governmental objective." The county appealed this ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The state supreme court held that the on-site construction requirement was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The court pointed out that county officials were "unable to identify any health and only minimal safety concerns that the on-site construction provision addressed. As to general welfare * * * the preservation of property values may implicate legitimate government concerns in some zoning situations, [but] there is nothing * * * here that demonstrates these concerns actually drove the formulation of the regulations at issue. Indeed * * * the modular home would not have affected property values in the area," according to one official, who "testified that homes built off-site ‘would have no real bearing upon market values at all,' " because District 17 "is a rural setting, and it's spread out into large