Nordlinger v. Hahn

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Carlyle W. Hall, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
90-1912
Petitioner: 
Nordlinger
Respondent: 
Hahn
Opinion: 
505 U.S. 1 (1992)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Nordlinger v. Hahn , 505 U.S. 1 (1992)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1912)
Facts of the Case: 

In a statewide ballot, California residents approved the addition of Article XIIIA to their State Constitution. Article XIIIA's "acquisition value" provision limited property assessment value increases to two percent, if caused by changes in ownership or new construction improvements. Article XIIIA exempted two types of transfers from this reassessment limit: first, if the principal seller is 55 or older and moved to a home of equal or lower value, and second, when a transfer occurred between parents and children. One of Article XIIIA's effects is that over time the taxes of new property owners, adjusted to reflect recent values, would be substantially higher than long-term property owner's taxes. A new property owner filed suit to challenge the state constitutional amendment.

Question: 

Does Article XIIIA's "acquisition value provision," which created a dramatic disparity in the property taxes paid by long-term property owners as compared with new property owners, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against new property owners?

Conclusion: 

The Court, through Justice Blackmun, held that California's new property tax system rationally and plausibly furthered legitimate state interests in restraining increasing property taxes and preserving local neighborhood stability. The discrepancy which Article XIIIA created between new and long time property owners is warranted, because the latter had a far greater reliance interest in their property than the former. Thus, long-time property owners deserved more protection from higher property taxes than new property owners. This demonstrated a significant difference between the two property owner types. In addition, both of Article XIIIA's exemptions rationally promoted a legitimate state interest. The first exemption did not discourage older people from moving to a smaller home that is likely to better suit their smaller family and income. The second exemption aimed at preserving family unity and neighborhood stability. Accordingly, the Court held that Article XIIIA did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Hahn, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote the majority opinion
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Harry A. Blackmun