ARTICLE

Executive Summary

Beacon is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make it easier for property owners to sue for compensation when government officials arbitrarily stop them from building on their own property. A legal doctrine called qualified immunity allows government officials to violate a person’s rights without providing compensation unless the plaintiff can satisfy the high burden of showing that the right was “clearly established.” Thus, Tennesseans whose rights are violated by government officials often have no recourse to seek damages in court. Beacon’s Tennessee Zoning Atlas showed “how local government zoning policies make housing unaffordable and worsen Middle Tennessee’s housing shortage, often at the expense of low- and middle-income families.” This case involves government misconduct that goes one step further: a mayor’s sustained campaign to prevent a builder from using his property in accordance with the city’s zoning code based on the mayor’s disdain for the people who the builder wanted to serve. A favorable decision from the Supreme Court will make it easier for Tennesseans—and all Americans—to hold government officials accountable when they violate a person’s fundamental property rights. 

Bethlehem Manor LLC is a Pennsylvania-based company that operates an assisted living facility. Its owner Abe Atiyeh is a developer who wanted to build a psychiatric hospital to help those who suffer from mental illness. The city initially agreed that a psychiatric hospital was a proper use for the property, but changed course at the behest of the mayor, who stated he did “not want those people here.” 

The Problem

Abe Atiyeh, the owner of Bethlehem Manor, wanted to build a psychiatric hospital on his property in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Abe learned that there were no stand-alone psychiatric hospitals in the immediate area and the hospitals that offered mental health services had limited beds. As many of his family members had been afflicted by mental illness, Abe felt a deep personal calling to build the hospital and obtained informal commitments from local hospitals to refer patients to him. 

The area was zoned for a hospital, and Bethlehem’s zoning officer initially agreed that the proposed psychiatric hospital was a permitted use for the property. The mayor intervened. He instructed the zoning officer and other city officials to prevent the hospital from opening because he did “not want those people here.” The zoning officer requested additional documents to delay the project and then denied the permit application outright. After years of litigation, the denial was reversed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. But, by then, several psychiatric hospitals had been built outside of city limits, and it was no longer feasible for Bethlehem Manor to move forward with its plans. 

The district court held that the mayor failed to show that his actions were protected by qualified immunity, which allows officials to escape liability unless the constitutional rights that they violated had been “clearly established.” The court held that Bethlehem Manor alleged that the mayor arbitrarily violated its property rights: The mayor convened a highly irregular meeting, far outside the city’s normal zoning and land development procedures and gave specific directions to city officials to keep psychiatric patients out of the city. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It derided the controversy as a “normal zoning dispute” that did not “hamper development in order to interfere with otherwise constitutionally protected activity at the project site, or because of some bias against an ethnic group.” Represented by Beacon free-of-charge, Bethlehem Manor is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the court of appeals’ decision.  

Legal Issues

We are asking the Supreme Court to narrow qualified immunity for government officials. In recent years, qualified immunity has been subjected to criticism from justices and scholars across the ideological spectrum. As Justice Thomas put it, the Supreme Court’s modern qualified immunity jurisprudence reflects policy choices that should be made by Congress rather than by a court. We argue that modern qualified immunity jurisprudence, which routinely serves as a shield for public officials who violate individual rights, conflicts with the text and history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Under a proper understanding of that statute, civil rights plaintiffs should be able to recover damages from government officials who violate their constitutional rights.

The Legal Team 

Wen Fa is the Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Beacon Center.  

Travis Woods is an attorney at the Beacon Center.