The law differentiated mentally retarded people between other similarly situated groups (like nursing homes, homes for convalescents, sanitariums, etc.) and prevented them from living in group homes in a certain area. The city claims that it wants to protect the mentally retarded from group homes from harassment from junior high students and from the threat of floods.
The Court finds an EP violation – the other similarly situated groups are equally at risk of these harms and perhaps even more likely to be harmed than the mentally retarded. The Court found this law as an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded. Although these interests could be found as valid, the court is more likely to step in because of the animus doctrine.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?