## Facts

- A neighborhood association and residents from the East Bibb–Twiggs area (a predominantly Black community) sued a local planning and zoning commission and private landfill applicants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A private company applied for a conditional use permit to operate a non-putrescible landfill (e.g., wood, paper) on land zoned agricultural, where such a landfill was allowed as a conditional use.
- The proposed site was in a census tract with a majority-Black population; plaintiffs asserted the approval would disproportionately burden Black residents.
- After a public hearing with substantial opposition citing traffic, noise, property-value, and health concerns, the commission initially denied the application, citing incompatibility with a residential area and increased truck traffic.
- On rehearing, the applicant presented mitigation measures and additional evidence; the commission approved the permit with conditions (including engineering review, regulatory approvals, waste limitations, and final site approval), and later granted final site approval.
- Plaintiffs alleged the landfill approval was motivated at least in part by race and reflected a practice of placing undesirable land uses in Black neighborhoods.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial on the equal protection claim; other constitutional claims were not before the court at this stage.

## Issues

1. Whether the commission’s approval of a landfill permit in a majority-Black area violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory racial intent.
2. Whether statistical disparities, historical context, and the sequence of events surrounding the permit decision were sufficient to prove race was a substantial or motivating factor.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for defendants after a non-jury trial.
- The court found plaintiffs did not prove that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the commission’s approval decision.
- The court concluded that disproportionate racial impact, without proof of discriminatory intent, did not establish an equal protection violation.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral land-use decision with disproportionate racial effects violates equal protection only if plaintiffs prove discriminatory intent or purpose; disparate impact alone is insufficient.
- Discriminatory intent may be shown through multiple evidentiary factors, including impact, historical background, the sequence of events, departures from ordinary procedures or criteria, and contemporaneous statements by decision-makers.
- When a governmental body is acting on private applications under standard conditional-use processes, an inference of purposeful racial targeting requires specific proof connecting the decision-makers’ actions to discriminatory purpose.

## Conclusion

The court held that, although the landfill’s burdens could fall disproportionately on Black residents, the evidence did not establish that the commission approved the permit because of race; therefore, plaintiffs failed to prove an Equal Protection Clause violation under § 1983.


E. Bibb Twiggs Neighborhood Ass'n v. Macon-Bibb Cnty. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 706 F. Supp. 880 (M.D. Ga. 1989)