Local Government Law Cases Outline
Governing bodies in the U.S. span three tiers: the federal government, state governments, and the governments of cities and counties. While the powers of local governments are limited, they handle many essential functions for their residents. Conflicts may arise between local governments and states, between local governments and the federal government, among local governments, or between local governments and individuals. Below is an outline of key cases in local government law with links to the full text of virtually every case, provided free by Justia.
Defining Public Entities
Courts often must distinguish between public and private entities in the context of cases involving free speech and other First Amendment rights. These constitutional protections tend to extend further in public settings.
Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram 一 Considering the alleged power and control of religious organizations and leaders over all real property and residency within the City of Rajneeshpuram, a court could conclude that the existence and operation of the city would represent an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Marsh v. Alabama 一 A state cannot impose criminal penalties for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company town contrary to regulations of the town management, when the town and its shopping district are accessible to the general public.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 一 An airport terminal operated by a public authority is a non-public forum, and thus a ban on solicitation need only satisfy a reasonableness standard.
New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp. 一 The three factors to consider in determining the existence and extent of the state free speech right on privately owned property are the nature, purposes, and primary use of such property, the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use the property, and the purpose of the expressional activity in relation to both the private and public use of the property.
City-State Relations and Constitutional Principles
Courts have held that cities are merely part of the state, constraining the authority of local governments and their officers. However, local governments may retain substantial control over certain areas, such as public education. State and local governments may clash over their treatment of protected groups.
Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh 一 Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created by it and at all times wholly under its legislative control.
Municipal Building Authority of Iron County v. Lowder 一 In permitting the creation of building authorities, the legislature has not removed control over local functions from local government or the people.
City of New York v. State of New York 一 Municipalities and other local governmental corporate entities and their officers lack capacity to mount constitutional challenges to acts of the state and state legislation.
Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 一 The constitutional prohibitions in the Contract Clauses of the federal and state constitutions do not protect political subdivisions of the state from the passage of retroactive laws impairing their rights with respect to transactions already passed because these protections are for the benefit of private citizens.
Milliken v. Bradley 一 While boundary lines may be bridged in circumstances in which there has been a constitutional violation calling for inter-district relief, school district lines may not be casually ignored or treated as a mere administrative convenience. Substantial local control of public education is a deeply rooted tradition.
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 一 An initiative that placed power over desegregative busing at the state level burdened all future attempts to integrate schools by lodging decision-making authority over the question at a new and remote level of government.
Romer v. Evans 一 A state constitutional amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause when it precluded all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships.
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati 一 A state law that prevents local voters or their representatives, against their will, from granting special rights to LGBTQ+ individuals cannot be rationally justified by cost savings and associational liberties that the majority of citizens in those communities do not want.
Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson 一 When a state prohibits all of its instruments from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race or gender, it has promulgated a law that addresses in neutral fashion race-related and gender-related matters. It does not isolate race or gender anti-discrimination laws from any specific area over which the state has delegated authority to a local entity.
Dillon’s Rule
A principle limiting local authority, Dillon’s Rule generally provides that a local government can exercise only powers that have been expressly granted by the state, powers that are necessarily and fairly implied from the grant of power, and powers vital to the existence of the local government.
Olesen v. Town (City) of Hurley 一 Municipalities possess only those powers conferred on them by the legislature, but a grant of authority includes incidental or implied powers that are necessary to enable a municipality to perform the function authorized. In this case, a city’s express power to sell alcohol by the glass did not imply a necessary power to operate a restaurant.
Arlington County v. White 一 A local governing body acted ultra vires in extending coverage under its self-funded health insurance benefits plan to unmarried domestic partners of its employees.
State v. Hutchinson 一 The rule requiring strict construction of the powers delegated by the legislature to counties and municipalities is archaic, unrealistic, and unresponsive to the current needs of both state and local governments, and it effectively nullifies the legislative grant of general police power to the counties. The ultimate limitation on potential abuses by local governments is the people themselves.
Home Rule
A counterpoint to Dillon’s Rule, home rule is a more modern view that accords distinctive spheres of authority to each level of government. State constitutions or statutes may provide a limited degree of autonomy to local governments, qualified by certain conditions. In theory, the state will not interfere with local authority in areas within the scope of home rule.
City of Ocala v. Nye 一 Since the Department of Transportation and counties, as political subdivisions of the state, are expressly permitted by statute to condemn more property than is necessary when they would save money by doing so, a city may likewise do so pursuant to its home rule powers.
McCrory Corp. v. Fowler 一 Creating a remedy that has traditionally been the sole province of the General Assembly and the Court of Appeals to combat a statewide problem such as employment discrimination goes beyond a matter of purely local concern.
Marshal House, Inc. v. Rent Review and Grievance Board of Brookline 一 The state constitution prevents the adoption of local rent control bylaws in the absence of an explicit delegation to municipalities by the legislature of the power to engage in such regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship.
City of La Grande v. Public Employees Retirement Board 一 A general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic, or other regulatory objectives of the state prevails over contrary policies preferred by some local governments if it is clearly intended to do so, unless the law is irreconcilable with the local community’s freedom to choose its own political form. In that case, the state law must yield in the particulars necessary to preserve that freedom of local organization.
Johnson v. Bradley 一 A statewide initiative that banned public financing of any election campaign did not preclude a city from adopting and enforcing the public funding provisions of its campaign reform measure.
City of Philadelphia v. Schweiker 一 The state legislature had the authority to enact provisions that transferred control of the parking authority from the mayor of the city to the state.
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, LLC 一 Factors to consider in determining whether the state interest is sufficient to justify preemption of home rule authority include the need for statewide uniformity of regulation, the impact of a measure on individuals living outside the municipality, historical considerations concerning whether the subject matter is traditionally governed by state or local government, and whether the state constitution specifically commits the particular matter to state or local regulation.
New Orleans Campaign for a Living Wage v. City of New Orleans 一 A state law prohibiting local governmental subdivisions from establishing a minimum wage that a private employer would be required to pay employees is a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power.
State Legislative Preemption
Just as federal laws may supersede state laws, statutes enacted by a state legislature may preempt local ordinances regulating similar activities. However, silence by state legislatures may allow cities to regulate.
American Financial Services Ass’n v. City of Oakland 一 An ordinance regulating predatory lending practices in the home mortgage market of a city was preempted by state legislation to combat predatory lending practices that typically occur in the subprime home mortgage market, which was signed into law eight days later.
Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Cincinnati 一 A tax enacted by a municipality pursuant to its taxing power is valid in the absence of an express statutory prohibition of the exercise of such power by the General Assembly.
City-Federal Relations
The relationship between local governments and the federal government often resembles the relationship between states and the federal government. This reflects the traditional view of cities as political subdivisions of the state. When the federal government engages directly with local governments, however, states cannot intervene in their relations.
National League of Cities v. Usery 一 In attempting to exercise its Commerce Clause power to prescribe minimum wages and maximum hours for employees of states and their political subdivisions, Congress sought to wield its power in a fashion that would impair their ability to function effectively in a federal system. This exercise of congressional authority did not comport with the federal system of government embodied in the Constitution.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 一 A rule of state or local immunity from federal regulation must not turn on a judicial appraisal of whether a particular governmental function is integral or traditional.
Printz v. U.S. 一 Congressional action compelling state and local law enforcement officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional.
Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School District 一 An attempt of state legislation to limit the manner in which counties or other qualified local governmental units spend federal in-lieu-of-tax payments violated the Supremacy Clause. Congress intended the affected units of local government to be managers of these funds, rather than the state’s cashiers.
Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League 一 A federal law that authorizes preemption of state and local laws and regulations that prohibit the ability of any entity to provide telecommunications services does not include the state’s subdivisions in the class of covered entities.
Incorporation, Annexation, and Secession
Constitutional principles have permitted a broad range of rules for who can vote to incorporate a city, consolidate two cities, or annex a city or part of a city into another city. Procedures allowing part of a city to secede from the city also may be flexible.
Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Sacramento County 一 It is constitutional for a state law to provide that only the voters residing in the territory to be incorporated into a city may vote to confirm the incorporation. Individual interests in voting are much attenuated by the state’s plenary power to oversee and regulate the formation of its political subdivisions.
City of Tucson v. Pima County 一 It is constitutional for the state legislature to require the consent of a proximate municipality before an area may incorporate.
Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh 一 The consolidation of two cities may be approved if a majority of the votes cast in the territory comprised within the limits of both cities favor the consolidation, even if a majority of the votes cast in one of the cities oppose it.
Murphy v. Kansas City, Missouri 一 Annexation needs to be approved only by the voters of the annexing city, and people residing in the area to be annexed have no vote.
Moorman v. Wood 一 When a city designates for annexation a contiguous part of another city, and there is an objection, the citizens of the annexation area vote on the matter, and a majority of those voting decide the issue.
Town of Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action 一 It does not violate the Equal Protection Clause for a proposed county charter to be adopted only if a majority of the voting city dwellers and a majority of the voting non-city dwellers both approve.
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 一 The Arizona annexation statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions by providing that only property owners can initiate annexation by the signing of annexation petitions.
City of New York v. State of New York 一 A special law prescribing a procedure for determining Staten Islanders’ interest in secession from New York City, and the basis on which they would wish such separation to be accomplished, was not an act in relation to the property, affairs, or government of New York City requiring a home rule message under the state constitution.
Conflicts and Disparities Among Cities
When a city appears to exclude or segregate certain groups, constitutional questions often arise. While some courts have mandated inclusionary policies, others have found them as dubious as exclusionary policies. Disputes also may arise over the distribution and redistribution of local wealth and the benefits that this confers.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. 一 Official action is not unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. A racially discriminatory intent must be shown through factors such as disproportionate impact, the historical background of the challenged decision, the specific antecedent events, departures from normal procedures, and contemporary statements of the decision-makers.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mt. Laurel (Mt. Laurel I) 一 A municipality must presumptively make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing. It must affirmatively afford an opportunity for low and moderate income housing to the extent of its fair share of the present and prospective regional need for this housing.
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. DeGroff Enterprises, Inc. 一 Localities may enact only traditional zoning ordinances directed to physical characteristics, having the purpose to neither include nor exclude any particular socioeconomic group.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 一 To the extent that the Texas system of school financing results in unequal expenditures between children who happen to reside in different districts, these disparities are not the product of a system that is so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 一 There must be a direct and close correlation between a district’s tax effort and the educational resources available to it. Children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds.
Claremont School District v. Governor of New Hampshire 一 Although the taxes levied by local school districts are local in the sense that they are levied on property within the district, the taxes are in fact state taxes that have been authorized by the legislature to fulfill the requirements of the state constitution. The varying property tax rates across the state violate the state constitution in that such taxes, which support the public purpose of education, are unreasonable and disproportionate.
Sheff v. O’Neill 一 The existence of extreme racial and ethnic isolation in the public school system of a city deprived schoolchildren of a substantially equal educational opportunity and required the state to take further remedial measures.
People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado 一 The enactment by the California legislature of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact was constitutional. The Compact imposes on counties a clear and present duty to pay to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency the sums allotted to them by the Agency as representing their respective shares of the amount of money necessary to support the Agency’s activities.
Municipal Treatment of Non-Residents
Rules for who may vote in local elections may trigger constitutional challenges but usually survive judicial review. Other challenges to differential treatment of non-residents may implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa 一 A government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders.
May v. Town of Mountain Village 一 When a law expands the right to vote, causing voting dilution, the rational basis test has been applied by the vast majority of courts. In this case, non-resident property owners had a sufficient interest in town affairs to make it rational for the town to include them in the political process.
Wit v. Berman 一 A state election law did not impermissibly deny citizens who had homes in multiple communities the right to vote in multiple local elections.
Martinez v. Bynum 一 In the public school context, the fact that provision for primary and secondary education is one of the most important functions of local government is an adequate justification for local residence requirements.
Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 一 A state (or one of its political subdivisions) may not avoid the Commerce Clause’s strictures by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce through subdivisions of the state, rather than through the state itself.
White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers 一 When a state or local government enters the market as a participant, it is not subject to the restraints of the Commerce Clause. The only inquiry is whether the challenged program constitutes direct state or local participation in the market.
Building Trades & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden 一 The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies not only to laws that discriminate on the basis of state citizenship but also to laws that discriminate on the basis of municipal residency. The fact that an ordinance is a municipal rather than state law does not place it outside the scope of the Clause.
Zoning, Takings, and Related Issues
Cities have substantial authority over zoning rules, and actions involving land use and eminent domain have survived many constitutional challenges. However, a city cannot irrationally disfavor a certain group when there is no threat to its legitimate interests.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas 一 The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 一 A city ordinance prohibiting adult movie theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school was a valid governmental response to the serious problems created by adult theaters and satisfied the dictates of the First Amendment.
Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompson 一 An ordinance adopted by the governing body of a city must satisfy the same requirement of reasonableness that is applicable to statutes enacted by the state legislature. A regulatory scheme intended to abate public nuisances may reasonably distinguish between the hours of permissible use of land when that use may operate to interfere with property and other rights of the community.
Kelo v. City of New London 一 A city’s decision to take property for the purpose of economic development satisfied the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
Maready v. City of Winston-Salem 一 A particular undertaking by a municipality is for a public purpose if it involves a reasonable connection with the convenience and necessity of the particular municipality, and the activity benefits the public generally, as opposed to special interests or persons. An expenditure does not lose its public purpose merely because it involves a private actor. (A law authorizing local governments to make economic development incentive grants to private corporations was constitutional.)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. 一 Requiring a special use permit for a proposed group home for mentally retarded people violated equal protection. Although the mentally retarded, as a group, are different from those who occupy other facilities that are permitted in the zoning area in question without a special permit, such difference is irrelevant unless the proposed group home would threaten the city’s legitimate interests in a way that the permitted uses would not.
Funding Local Governments
Cities also have significant discretion in collecting taxes and fees. Courts usually uphold these procedures if they are reasonable, but specific legal standards vary among jurisdictions. Private entities do not have a First or Fifth Amendment right to prevent competition from municipal entities or incentives for residents to use competing municipal services.
Nordlinger v. Hahn 一 An acquisition value system of taxation, in which property is reassessed up to current appraised value upon new construction or a change in ownership, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
2nd Roc-Jersey Associates v. Town of Morristown 一 Assessments imposed on real property in a municipal Special Improvement District were not unconstitutional just because residential properties were excluded from the assessments.
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. 一 Under the dual rational nexus test for determining the constitutionality of impact fees, the local government must demonstrate reasonable connections between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by the subdivision, and the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision.
Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC 一 The voluntary offer of public benefits beyond what might be necessary to mitigate the development of a parcel of land does not, standing alone, invalidate a legislative act of the town meeting. (A town meeting vote to rezone a parcel of land was not invalid because the prospective owner of the parcel had offered to give $8 million to the town if the rezoning was approved, and a power plant was built and operated on the site.)
AT&T Co. v. Village of Arlington Heights 一 Municipal governments cannot extort toll charges or franchise fees for the crossing of public ways.
Toledo Edison Co. v. City of Bryan 一 A municipality does not have constitutional authority to purchase electricity solely for direct resale to an entity that is not an inhabitant of the municipality and not within the municipality’s limits.
Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville 一 When a cable communications company retained the uninfringed right to send its messages to the audience in a city, its feared loss of profits due to competition by the city-owned system did not constitute a First Amendment injury.
Bagford v. Ephraim City 一 A city garbage collection ordinance did not result in a taking of a private garbage collection business when the ordinance provided for municipal garbage collection and required all city residents to pay a fee for the city’s garbage collection, whether or not the residents used the city’s facilities.
Local Elections
The one-person, one-vote principle of Reynolds v. Sims generally covers local governments as well as states. An exception may apply when the activities at issue disproportionately affect the interests of a limited, clearly defined group, but courts have been reluctant to allow subsets of local populations to restrict the rights of others.
Avery v. Midland County 一 Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population. (The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the state or a political subdivision.)
Ball v. James 一 The system for electing the directors of a water reclamation district could limit voting eligibility to landowners and apportion voting power according to the amount of land that a voter owned. The one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause did not apply.
Kessler v. Grand Central District Management Ass’n 一 Since a business improvement district was a district that existed for a special limited purpose, the activities of the manager of the BID had a disproportionate effect on property owners, and the manager had no primary responsibilities or general powers typical of a governmental entity, the BID fell within the exception to the one-person, one-vote requirement.
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. 一 A referendum cannot be characterized as a delegation of power. All power derives from the people, who can delegate it to representative instruments that they create.
Eubank v. City of Richmond 一 A municipal ordinance requiring the authorities to establish building lines on separate blocks back of the public streets and across private property on the request of less than all of the owners of the property affected is not a valid exercise of police power.
Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge 一 A zoning ordinance violated due process when it provided that a philanthropic home for children or old people shall be permitted in a certain district only when the written consent has been obtained of the owners of two-thirds of the property within 400 feet of the proposed building.
Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago 一 An ordinance prohibiting billboards was not invalidated by a provision that removed the prohibition as to any billboard to which the owners of a majority of the frontage on both sides of the street in the block consented.
City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation 一 When a city acted pursuant to the requirements of its charter and its facially neutral petitioning procedure in submitting a referendum petition to the voters, the city did not give effect to voters’ allegedly discriminatory motives for supporting the petition.
This outline has been compiled by the Justia team for solely educational purposes and should not be treated as an independent source of legal authority or a summary of the current state of the law. Students should use this outline as a supplement rather than a substitute for course-specific outlines.
