## Facts

- After the *Mount Laurel* decisions recognized a state-constitutional duty for developing municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for their regional fair share of low- and moderate-income housing, multiple exclusionary-zoning suits were pending against various New Jersey municipalities.
- The Legislature enacted the New Jersey Fair Housing Act (FHA) to implement the constitutional obligation through an administrative scheme.
- The FHA created the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and authorized it to define housing regions, estimate regional housing need, and assign municipal “fair share” obligations.
- The FHA allowed municipalities to seek “substantive certification” of housing elements and fair share plans and provided a degree of protection from *Mount Laurel* suits during administrative processing.
- The FHA structured judicial review by limiting court intervention in COAH-related determinations to cases supported by clear and convincing evidence of municipal noncompliance.
- Municipalities and other parties challenged the FHA as unconstitutional, arguing it improperly restricted courts and delayed satisfaction of the constitutional affordable-housing obligation.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHA unconstitutionally diluted, postponed, or otherwise impaired municipalities’ state-constitutional *Mount Laurel* obligation to provide a realistic opportunity for low- and moderate-income housing.
2. Whether the Legislature could assign primary implementation responsibilities to an administrative agency (COAH) and thereby structure the judiciary’s remedial role consistent with separation-of-powers principles.
3. Whether delays inherent in the FHA’s administrative process were constitutionally permissible.
4. How pending and future *Mount Laurel* litigation should proceed in light of the FHA and COAH’s certification process.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the FHA and validated COAH’s role in administering a statewide affordable-housing compliance system.
- The Court accepted that the FHA could cause some delay in producing lower-income housing, but held that delay is permissible if the statutory design is reasonably calculated to secure municipal compliance within a reasonable time.
- The Court held that courts should generally defer to COAH’s determinations and procedures.
- Judicial intervention remains available when there is clear and convincing evidence that a municipality’s compliance is inadequate or illusory, and municipalities that do not act in good faith or timely remain subject to judicial enforcement of *Mount Laurel* obligations.
- The Court directed that *Mount Laurel* litigation should ordinarily proceed with substantial reliance on the COAH process, while preserving judicial remedies when the administrative mechanism fails to ensure constitutional compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are presumed constitutional; when a constitutional problem allows more than one remedy, the Legislature may adopt a comprehensive statewide solution rather than leaving compliance to case-by-case adjudication.
- The *Mount Laurel* constitutional obligation remains in force; implementing legislation must be construed to facilitate, not frustrate, that obligation.
- An administrative implementation scheme may be valid even if it produces some delay, so long as it is designed to achieve compliance within a reasonable time.
- Courts ordinarily defer to COAH’s technical and policy determinations; court relief is warranted upon clear and convincing evidence that a municipality has not met its constitutional duty.
- Safe-harbor style protections associated with certification do not bar judicial enforcement where municipal conduct is not in good faith or not timely, or where the constitutional standard is not actually satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Fair Housing Act as a constitutional legislative framework for implementing *Mount Laurel* through COAH, requiring general judicial deference to the administrative process while maintaining a constitutional backstop that permits court enforcement when the statutory scheme does not produce genuine, timely municipal compliance.


Hills Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Bernards, 103 N.J. 1, 510 A.2d 621 (1986)