A doctrine adrift: Land use regulation and the substantive due process of Lawton v. Steele in the Supreme Court of Washington

Although substantive due process theory has lost much of its force as a loc al policymaking tool in the federal courts, the doctrine has played a signi ficant role in the land use policies of Washington State. Relying on an anc ient U.S. Supreme Court case, Lawton v. Steele, the Supreme Court of Washin gton has declared that legislation permitting government to pass the social costs of low-income housing demolition on to individual developers through development impact fees is "unduly oppressive" on those individuals and th us violates substantive due process. This Comment argues that the substanti ve due process doctrine the Supreme Court of Washington has applied is irre levant under the Federal Constitution and inconsistent with Washington cons titutional jurisprudence. Moreover, the Comment asserts that the substantiv e due process theory of Lawton v. Steele inappropriately permits courts to delve into the policymaking role of legislators.