## Facts

- Roger Schanzenbach owned four consecutive lots in the Town of Opal, Wyoming.
- In November 2008, Schanzenbach applied for building permits to place four manufactured homes (mobile homes), one on each lot; each home was more than ten years old.
- On January 21, 2009, the town council approved the permits. The permits contained a commencement/expiration condition and, by their terms, expired in February 2010.
- In March 2009, after issuing the permits, Opal enacted Ordinance 2009-001, which included a “10-Year Rule” barring installation of any manufactured home more than ten years old at the time of the permit application.
- The town characterized the 10-Year Rule as an appearance-based regulation and did not add construction or safety requirements for manufactured homes.
- In November 2009, before the permits expired, Schanzenbach requested extensions. The town denied the requests because the homes exceeded the 10-Year Rule’s age limit.
- In September 2010, Schanzenbach reapplied for permits for the same homes. The town denied the applications again based on the 10-Year Rule.
- Schanzenbach sued the Town of Opal and individual town officials in federal district court, alleging (among other claims) that the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 preempted the 10-Year Rule and that the rule violated equal protection and substantive due process.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Schanzenbach appealed.

## Issues

1. Does the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and related federal standards preempt Opal’s 10-Year Rule limiting the age of manufactured homes at the time of permit application?
2. Does the 10-Year Rule violate the Equal Protection Clause under rational-basis review?
3. Does the 10-Year Rule violate substantive due process as an arbitrary land-use restriction where no fundamental right is implicated?

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Town of Opal and the individual defendants.
- The court held that the Manufactured Housing Act did not preempt the 10-Year Rule because the ordinance addressed the age/appearance of units as a siting regulation and did not impose nonidentical construction or safety standards.
- The court held that the 10-Year Rule survived equal protection review because limiting older manufactured homes was rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in neighborhood appearance.
- The court held that the substantive due process claim failed because the ordinance was a rational land-use measure and did not amount to arbitrary government action violating due process.

## Legal Principles

- The Manufactured Housing Act’s express preemption clause targets state and local standards “regarding the construction or safety” of manufactured homes that are not identical to federal standards; it does not bar local land-use rules aimed at siting or appearance that do not function as construction or safety standards.
- A plaintiff asserting equal protection without a suspect classification or a fundamental right must overcome rational-basis review; the classification stands if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could supply a rational basis.
- Under rational-basis review, a government body need not prove its actual motives, and a court may uphold a measure based on any rational justification consistent with the record.
- Community appearance and neighborhood character are legitimate governmental interests that can support zoning and similar land-use regulations.
- Where no fundamental right is at stake, substantive due process challenges to land-use regulation generally fail if the regulation is rational and not an extreme or arbitrary abuse of governmental power.

## Conclusion

In *Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal, Wyoming*, the Tenth Circuit upheld a town ordinance barring installation of manufactured homes more than ten years old at the time of permit application, ruling that the measure operated as an appearance-based siting restriction rather than a construction or safety standard preempted by the Manufactured Housing Act, and that it was rationally related to legitimate local objectives under both equal protection and substantive due process.


Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal, Wyoming, 706 F.3d 1269 (2013)