## Facts

- Community Resources for Justice, Inc. (CRJ), a nonprofit, sought approval in 2004 to use its Elm Street building in Manchester as a federal halfway house under contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- Manchester denied approval, concluding the proposed use was a “correctional facility” under the zoning ordinance.
- The ordinance categorically prohibited “correctional facilities” in all zoning districts.
- The City conceded the ban did not apply to state-run correctional institutions.
- CRJ sued, asserting (among other claims) that the ordinance, as applied to CRJ, violated equal protection under the New Hampshire Constitution and was an invalid exercise of zoning police power.
- In a prior appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court clarified that state intermediate scrutiny requires the government to prove the challenged law is substantially related to an important governmental objective, and remanded for application of that standard.
- On remand, the trial court heard evidence: the City cited public-safety and property-value concerns; CRJ presented evidence that its program would improve community safety and not reduce property values.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the New Hampshire Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, the City proved that applying its categorical ban on “correctional facilities” to CRJ was substantially related to an important governmental objective.
2. Whether, as applied to CRJ, the ordinance failed to promote the general welfare and therefore exceeded the City’s delegated zoning police power.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s post-remand order in favor of CRJ.
- The court held the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to CRJ because the City did not meet its burden under intermediate scrutiny to show a substantial relationship between the ban and important governmental objectives.
- The court also affirmed that, as applied to CRJ, the ordinance did not promote the general welfare and was an invalid exercise of zoning police power.

## Legal Principles

- Under the New Hampshire Constitution, intermediate scrutiny requires the government to prove the challenged classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- When intermediate scrutiny applies, the government’s burden is evidentiary; it is not enough to offer hypothetical justifications.
- Trial-court fact findings on the evidentiary record receive appellate deference, while constitutional conclusions are reviewed independently.
- Zoning restrictions must reasonably relate to legitimate public purposes and promote the community’s general welfare; an ordinance that does not reasonably advance those purposes is invalid as applied.
- Differential treatment of similar institutions (e.g., exempting state-run facilities while barring comparable non-state facilities) can undercut a municipality’s asserted public-safety or welfare rationale in an as-applied challenge.

## Conclusion

The court upheld relief for CRJ, ruling that Manchester could not enforce its across-the-board “correctional facility” ban against CRJ’s proposed halfway house because the City failed to prove the ban was substantially related to important objectives and because the ordinance, as applied, did not promote the general welfare within the City’s zoning authority.


Community Resources for Justice, Inc. v. City of Manchester, 157 N.H. 152, 949 A.2d 681 (2008)