## Facts

- United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. sought municipal land-development approvals to build a multiplex theater in Warrington Township, Pennsylvania.
- A competitor’s developer (associated with Regal Cinema) pursued a competing multiplex; the parties allegedly competed for the only project the local market could support.
- The competitor’s developer agreed to pay the Township an annual $100,000 “impact fee”; United Artists refused the Township’s repeated requests to pay a similar fee.
- United Artists submitted a preliminary land development plan in January 1996.
- The Township conditioned preliminary approval on installation of a separate left-turn lane that required acquiring additional property United Artists did not own; United Artists alleged the requirement was pretextual.
- Preliminary approval for United Artists was granted in March 1997, but the Township postponed final approval three times, repeatedly raising the impact-fee issue, and granted final approval in September 1997.
- The competitor’s application, submitted in early 1997, received preliminary approval in about one month and final approval by May 1997.
- United Artists never built its theater and alleged the Township deliberately stalled its project while expediting the competitor’s project to obtain the impact fee.
- United Artists sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging substantive and procedural due process violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on procedural due process but denied summary judgment on substantive due process, using an “improper motive” standard.
- The Township supervisors took an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim.

## Issues

1. Whether intervening Supreme Court authority permitted reconsideration of the circuit’s prior substantive due process test in land-use cases despite law-of-the-case concerns.
2. Whether a § 1983 substantive due process challenge to municipal land-use decisions requires proof of “improper motive” or instead executive conduct that “shocks the conscience.”
3. Whether the supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity once the correct substantive due process standard is applied.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that intervening Supreme Court precedent allowed reconsideration of the governing substantive due process standard.
- The court adopted the “shocks the conscience” test for substantive due process challenges to municipal land-use decisions.
- The court rejected prior circuit precedent allowing liability upon a showing of “improper motive,” stating those cases were superseded.
- The court vacated the order denying summary judgment to the supervisors and remanded for the district court to reconsider substantive due process and qualified immunity under the “shocks the conscience” standard.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process claims challenging executive action require conduct “so egregious” that it “shocks the conscience.”
- In land-use disputes, proof that municipal officials acted with an “improper motive,” without more, is insufficient to establish a substantive due process violation.
- The Due Process Clause is not a general remedy for unfairness in local planning disputes and should not convert routine land-use conflicts into federal constitutional litigation.
- Qualified immunity analysis depends on identifying the correct constitutional standard; when the district court applies the wrong substantive due process test, qualified immunity must be reconsidered under the proper standard.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit required plaintiffs bringing § 1983 substantive due process challenges to municipal land-use decisions to demonstrate conscience-shocking executive conduct, vacated the denial of qualified immunity entered under an “improper motive” approach, and remanded for further proceedings under the heightened standard.


United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003)