COAH-christie.jpg

(Aristide Economopoulos | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

Make no mistake: Gov. Chris Christie suffered a major defeat this week at the hands of the state Supreme Court. It was one of the greatest affirmations of the integrity of our judiciary in a long time.

The Christie administration was, in essence, telling our state's highest court not to hold by its own orders on affordable housing. The message of the justices was clear: No way.

They drew a red line in the face of our imperial governor, reiterating that towns can't use their zoning laws to keep out working class people. Most notably, the decision was unanimous. All three of Christie's appointees ruled against him, putting the law before politics.

The response from the governor's office was unusually muted. After all, what is Christie going to say now — that his own people are activist judges? That this is yet another edict from a "liberal court"?



Some saw that bland acceptance as evidence that Christie got what he'd cynically wanted all along. He has never liked the Mount Laurel rulings, beginning in 1975, in which the court required that each town provide the realistic opportunity for affordable housing. He called them an "abomination."

He refused to comply with the court's order to establish new guidelines for how many homes each town should make available, effectively shutting down the state's affordable housing program. And by staging this revolt and compelling a decision that now leaves the guidelines to the trial courts to enforce, he avoids having to make affordable housing policy.

Yes, he's washed his hands of it — true. But by no means could Christie have predicted his own appointees would also rule against him. He picked an epic constitutional fight, and lost. Epically.

The governor has railed against the justices before, but didn't ever go so far as in this case to defy them. As it turned out, not a single one would back down. Instead, they doubled down on the ruling that towns can't keep out lower income residents, and stripped away the legal protections that recalcitrant towns use to fend off lawsuits on affordable housing.

The practical effect is that towns will now either have to comply with the law or face a rash of litigation, and be compelled to provide the housing. Is it the perfect solution? No. But it's no return to the chaos of the early days of Mount Laurel, either.

Back then, there were no guidelines on affordable housing, so the trial courts were left to figure it out for themselves. In this decision, the Supreme Court points to existing standards as a roadmap for the courts to decide these cases, including protections for environmentally sensitive areas.

So Christie did not get what he wanted from the Supreme Court, and didn't get to block affordable housing, either. Mark this down as a victory not just for the working poor, but for an independent judiciary — and a much-needed lesson for our royal governor.

Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @starledger. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook.