Earlier today, the Superior Court judge hearing a lawsuit on behalf of now 26 municipalities challenging the fourth-round rules of affordable housing obligations issued an Order denying their requests for injunctive relief pending the Court’s final judgment of the litigation. The Order, which followed oral arguments held two weeks ago, states that the municipalities’ challenge to the fourth-round rules can proceed without delaying the fourth round or its deadlines. The Court also scheduled oral arguments on the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss the municipal plaintiffs’ complaint for January 31 at 10:00 am via Zoom, which will be livestreamed.
Specifically, the Court’s Order denied plaintiffs’ requests for each of the following:
- a stay of the litigation adopting the fourth-round rules of affordable housing,
- a stay of the Mt. Laurel doctrine,
- a stay of the obligations of every municipality relative to the requirements of the fourth round of affordable housing, and
- an order enjoining the defendants, which are the State, Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program, the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, and Fair Share Housing Center, from taking any actions relating to the litigation adopting the fourth-round rules of affordable housing and/or the fourth round under the Mt. Laurel doctrine.
The Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for relief on multiple grounds. The Court cited the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and failure to overcome the very high burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of challenging the validity of a legislative enactment, as well as the public interest and balancing of the equities which, the Court declared, “overwhelmingly favor” the defendants.
The Court emphasized that municipalities are not required to participate in the fourth round, and those that do not participate or fail to meet a deadline in the fourth round are in the same position as if the legislative branch had not passed any fourth-round legislation: such a municipality could affirmatively file a declaratory judgment action (which the Court held was not eliminated by the fourth round) or may have to defend itself in builders’ remedy/exclusionary zoning lawsuits. The Court stressed that these litigation options for municipalities that do not participate or who fail to meet a deadline in the fourth round “flow not from the legislation but from the continuing constitutional command of Mt. Laurel.” In other words, municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing regardless of the litigation adopting the fourth-round rules.
The Court also denied the plaintiffs’ equal protection and special legislation claims that challenged the exemption of urban aid municipalities from prospective but not present need calculations. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and, on the merits, “cannot establish that an exception that has been a component part of this landscape since Mount Laurel II offends, beyond a reasonable doubt, the most deferential of constitutional standards of review that governs the Court’s inquiry.”
The Court further denied the plaintiffs’ procedural claims challenging the newly established Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program.
The Court’s Order and decision, which includes both the basis for its ruling and a background on the constitutional obligation for municipalities to provide affordable housing, can be found here. Our prior blog post on the next steps and deadlines for the fourth-round rules can be found here.