Reading Case Briefs · College Political Science

College Political Science Quiz

20 questions · no time limit

0:00

LAW, COURTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS

Question 1 of 20

No time limit

Current

Answered

Flagged

Not seen

PASSAGE

CASE: Werner v. City of Brighton Facts: The City of Brighton enacted a 'historical preservation' ordinance that prohibited homeowners in a designated district from making any changes to their home's exterior that were not 'in keeping with the historical character of the neighborhood.' The ordinance did not define this phrase further. Werner was denied a permit to replace his aging wooden windows with modern, energy-efficient vinyl windows. He sued, claiming the ordinance was void for vagueness. Issue: Is a historical preservation ordinance that allows a commission to deny permits based on whether a modification is 'in keeping with the historical character of the neighborhood' unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause? Holding: Yes. The ordinance is unconstitutional. Reasoning: The Due Process Clause requires that laws give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. A law cannot be so vague that it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The phrase 'in keeping with the historical character' provides no objective standard. It creates a risk of arbitrary enforcement by the commission, as decisions could be based on subjective preference rather than clear legal rules. Homeowners are not given fair notice of what is permissible.

Which of the following, if added to the ordinance, would most directly address the constitutional defect identified by the court?

YOUR PROGRESS

QUESTIONS

Ready when you are

Answer in any order. Your progress shows here as you go.

QUESTIONS

KEYBOARD

Pick an answer ABCD

Next question ↵→

Flag for review F