Maher V New Orleans Case Brief

Ed FitzGerald 03/31/08

PRESERVATION CASE BRIEF: Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2D 1051 (5th Cir. 1975). Facts Plaintiff Maher, having desired to demolish a structure on his property that is protected from such action under the City of New Orleans’s Vieux Carre Ordinance and having been denied approval by the City for said demolition, brought suit against the defendant on grounds that said Ordinance affronts the due process clause, because it provides no objective criteria to guide the Commission charged with its administration, and constitutes a taking of his property without just compensation. Issue Whether the Vieux Carre Ordinance provides inadequate guidance to the Commission for the exercise of its administrative judgment and, to a lesser extent, whether said Ordinance forbidding the demolition of certain structures constitutes a taking, is a violation of the plaintiff’s Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Holding The Court, finding the Ordinance a permissible means to achieve a legitimate State goal (not contested), held that reasonable legislative and practical guidance to, and control over, administrative decision making provided for proper execution of police power and that no taking had occurred. Rationale The Court reasoned that “to satisfy due process, guidelines to aid a commission charged with implementing a public zoning purpose need not be so rigidly drawn as to prejudge the outcome in each case, precluding reasonable administrative discretion.” While concerns of aesthetic or historic preservation do not lend themselves to precise quantification, certain structural checks had been codified in the Ordinance to alleviate any potential for arbitrariness by the administrating Commission including: clearly defined goals and expectations, precise wording where possible, specifying the composition of Commission, and an elaborate decision-making and appeal process. Further, the Court found that “upkeep of buildings appears reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the goals of the Ordinance” (negating the takings argument and further affirming the legitimacy of the Ordinance).