The jurisprudential importance of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision on how courts should approach multiple constitutional challenges to a series of zoning ordinances is discussed by two Temple University professors.

The decision in Piper Group Inc. v. Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors was a victory for Ballard Spahr attorneys Michael Sklaroff, Matthew N. McClure, and Burt M. Rublin, who had urged the justices to use the case as a vehicle to clarify the contours of the “pending ordinance doctrine.”

The justices agreed with the Ballard team’s argument that the new ordinance had cured the constitutional defects in the first ordinance, and developers are not entitled to carte blanche to develop land whenever a zoning law is struck down. Instead, the unanimous court held that municipalities must be given an opportunity to cure defects and enforce a new version of the law.