A statute that authorizes an entity such as an administrative agency, court, or local government to adopt rules or regulations in a specified area. The legislation provides the foundational grant of power under which detailed rules, ordinances, or programs are developed.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Zoning Authority Granted by Statute
Everest Holdings seeks to develop a mixed-use project in a township whose charter contains no independent zoning power. The state legislature has enacted enabling legislation that expressly authorizes municipalities to create zoning districts and issue permits. The township enacts an ordinance under that statute and applies it to deny the project. The validity of the denial turns on whether the township acted within the scope of the authority conferred by the enabling legislation.
Class Action Bar Displaced
Elena Estrada and other policyholders sue an insurer in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for unpaid interest. A state statute bars class actions seeking only interest. The court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because the rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act and does not modify substantive rights. The state bar is therefore displaced.
Edith Eberhardt occupies an apartment under a rent-control program created by local law. The state enabling legislation states that the ultimate goal is return to free-market bargaining. A court refuses to extend the tenancy indefinitely because that result would contradict the limits expressed in the enabling legislation.
Braschi v. Stahl Associates543 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989)
Miguel Braschi resided with Leslie Blanchard in a rent-controlled apartment at 405 East 54th Street from the summer of 1975 until Blanchard's death in September 1986.
Stahl Associates Company owned the apartment building. In November 1986, Stahl Associates served Braschi with a notice to cure, claiming he was a mere licensee with no right to occupy the apartment because only Blanchard was the tenant of record. In December 1986, Stahl Associates served a notice to terminate, giving Braschi one month to vacate.
Braschi initiated an action for a permanent injunction and a declaration of his entitlement to occupy the apartment. He moved for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court found that the long-term interdependent nature of the ten-year relationship fulfilled the definitional criteria of family and issued the preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the regulation protects only family members within traditional, legally recognized familial relationships.
Braschi appealed. The two men had lived together as permanent life partners for more than ten years. They regarded one another as spouses, their families were aware of the relationship, and they attended family functions together. Braschi listed the apartment as his address on his driver's license and passport. They shared all financial obligations, maintained joint checking and savings accounts, and Blanchard executed a power of attorney in Braschi's favor and named him beneficiary of his life insurance policy and primary legatee of his estate.
Edgewater Capital proposes a large residential development containing varied densities and uses. The municipality approves the project under a local ordinance adopted pursuant to state enabling legislation that permits planned unit developments. The approval is upheld because the enabling legislation supplies the necessary grant of contractual flexibility.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel336 A.2d 713, *appeal dismissed and cert. denied*, 423 U.S. 808 (1975)
Erika Echevarria files a putative class action against a large retailer alleging employment discrimination. The retailer argues that state law restricts class treatment. The court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because the rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act and governs the procedural question of certification.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes564 U.S. 338 (2011)
In 2001, three current or former female employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.—Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana—filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California alleging that the company had discriminated against them and other women in pay and promotions.
Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer with approximately 3,400 stores across the country and more than one million employees, delegated pay and promotion decisions to local store managers who exercised broad discretion in a largely subjective manner. The plaintiffs claimed that this discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men, resulting in lower pay and fewer promotions for female employees.
They sought to represent a class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees who had worked at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store since December 26, 1998. To support their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs presented statistical evidence from experts Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Marc Bendick showing pay and promotion disparities between men and women, anecdotal evidence consisting of about 120 affidavits from female employees describing discriminatory experiences at only 235 of the company's 3,400 stores, and the testimony of sociologist Dr. William Bielby who analyzed Wal-Mart’s corporate culture.
Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburg, California store in 1994 as a cashier and was later promoted to customer service manager before being demoted; she alleged retaliation and that male greeters were paid more. Christine Kwapnoski worked at Sam’s Club stores and claimed a male manager yelled at female employees and told her to “doll up.” Edith Arana worked at a Duarte, California store from 1995 to 2001. She was denied opportunities for management training despite repeated requests.
The District Court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs had presented significant evidence of a company-wide pattern of discrimination. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, substantially affirmed the certification order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the class certification was consistent with Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
Eugene Ellsworth applies for a building permit that would alter the character of a historic neighborhood. The city denies the permit under an ordinance enacted pursuant to state enabling legislation authorizing aesthetic and historic-preservation controls. The denial is sustained because the enabling legislation supplies the requisite authority for the regulation.
State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970)
Relators owned a lot in the City of Ladue and applied to the Building Commissioner for a permit to construct a single-family residence of unusual design. They submitted plans and specifications that complied with all existing building and zoning regulations of the city.
The Building Commissioner refused the permit on the ground that the Architectural Board had not approved the plans. The city had enacted Ordinance 131 as amended by Ordinance 281, which established an Architectural Board of three members, all of whom must be architects, to review applications affecting outward appearance.
The ordinances recited a purpose to maintain minimum architectural standards of appearance and conformity with surrounding structures while avoiding unsightly, grotesque, and unsuitable structures detrimental to property values and community welfare. Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the trial court and moved for summary judgment.
The Building Commissioner filed opposing affidavits from the mayor, a residential developer, and a planning consultant. The mayor's affidavit stated that Ladue was one of the finer suburban residential areas of metropolitan St. Louis, with homes on lots ranging from three-fourths of an acre to three or more acres and values considerably above average for cities of comparable size. The developer’s affidavit described the existing houses as virtually all two-story structures of conventional Colonial, French Provincial, or English design and stated that the proposed ultramodern residence would clash with every other house in the neighborhood.
The planning consultant attached photographic exhibits of the surrounding homes, including the Colonial frame house to the west, the English Tudor brick home to the northeast, and the large Colonial homes immediately to the north, and also attached exhibits showing the proposed residence as a pyramid shape with a flat top and triangular windows or doors. The affidavits further stated that the proposed structure would have a substantial adverse effect on market values of other residential property in the area, where average values ranged from $60,000 to $85,000. The trial court granted the motion and issued a peremptory writ compelling issuance of the permit. The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the trial court’s judgment and reversed it.
What is the relationship between enabling legislation and local zoning ordinances?
Enabling legislation supplies the statutory grant of power that allows a municipality to enact zoning ordinances. Without that grant, a locality generally lacks authority to impose land-use restrictions.
Does enabling legislation itself set the substantive rules for land use?
No. Enabling legislation typically delegates power and establishes broad standards. The detailed substantive rules appear in the ordinances or regulations adopted under that legislation.
How does the Rules Enabling Act function as enabling legislation?
The Rules Enabling Act is a federal statute that authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts, provided the rules do not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights.
When does a federal procedural rule adopted under the Rules Enabling Act displace state law in diversity cases?
A federal rule displaces conflicting state law when the rule is on point, is at least arguably procedural, and is valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it does not alter substantive rights.
Can enabling legislation be challenged as exceeding constitutional limits?
Yes. A party may argue that the legislation delegates power too broadly or that the resulting local regulation violates constitutional protections such as due process or equal protection.
438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978)
…quality of life for people.” New York City, responding to similar concerns and acting pursuant to a New York State enabling Act, adopted its Landmarks Preservation Law in 1965. See N. Y. C. Admin. Code, ch. 8-A, § 205-1.0 et seq. (1976). The city acted from the conviction that “the standing of [New York…