## Facts

- George Washington University (GWU), a private university in the Foggy Bottom/West End area of Washington, D.C., operated amid a mixed-use neighborhood with substantial residential uses.
- Under District zoning rules, university use was permitted as of right in certain commercial zones but required a special exception in residential and special-purpose zones.
- GWU sought approval of a long-term campus plan and related special exceptions for development and growth.
- The District’s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) found that GWU’s expansion and increasing numbers of undergraduates living off campus in the neighborhood were harming “livability” and the area’s residential character, including displacement effects.
- The BZA approved the campus plan but imposed conditions aimed at reducing the concentration of undergraduate students in Foggy Bottom/West End.
- Key conditions included a requirement that GWU house 70% of undergraduates either on campus or outside the Foggy Bottom/West End area, along with phased compliance measures; a proposed enrollment cap tied to housing capacity was later removed.
- GWU sued in federal district court alleging constitutional violations, including substantive due process, equal protection, and the right to travel; the district court ruled for GWU only on substantive due process.
- The District appealed, and GWU cross-appealed the rejection of its other constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the BZA’s 70% undergraduate-housing condition and related restrictions were arbitrary and irrational so as to violate substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the BZA’s differential treatment of university uses (and the student population effects associated with them) violated equal protection under rational basis review.
3. Whether the conditions impermissibly burdened the constitutional right to travel by indirectly limiting where students could live.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that the BZA’s conditions violated substantive due process.
- The court rejected GWU’s equal protection and right-to-travel claims.
- The court upheld the challenged zoning conditions, concluding there were no constitutional defects in the BZA’s order.

## Legal Principles

- Land-use and other social and economic regulations generally satisfy substantive due process if they are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; federal courts do not reweigh policy choices or factual judgments under rational basis review.
- Preserving residential character, mitigating congestion and noise, and maintaining a balance between institutional and residential uses are legitimate governmental interests for zoning regulation.
- Classifications affecting universities and students are reviewed under rational basis unless they involve a suspect class or a fundamental right; different treatment is permissible if rationally related to distinct land-use impacts.
- Right-to-travel doctrine requires a showing that a law penalizes interstate migration or directly burdens entry or movement; indirect effects from regulating an institution’s land use typically do not constitute an unconstitutional penalty.
- Federal courts give substantial deference to local zoning authorities and will not constitutionalize ordinary land-use disputes absent clear arbitrariness.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the District could condition approval of GWU’s campus plan on a requirement that 70% of undergraduates be housed on campus or outside the surrounding neighborhood because the condition was rationally related to legitimate zoning objectives and did not violate substantive due process, equal protection, or the right to travel.


George Wash. Univ. v. District of Columbia, 318 F.3d 203 (D.C. Cir. 2003)