City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Board
576 P.2d 1204, 281 Or. 137, 1978 Ore. LEXIS 725 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law enacted for substantive social, economic, or other regulatory objectives prevails over contrary local policies under municipal home rule provisions, unless the law is irreconcilable with the local community's freedom to choose its own political form. State laws addressing the structure and procedures of local government, however, impinge on home rule powers and must be justified by a distinct need.
Facts:
- In 1971, the Oregon legislature enacted a statute requiring public employers, including cities, to bring their police officers and firefighters into the state's Public Employes Retirement System (PERS).
- The statute allowed a city to be exempt if it provided its police and firefighters with retirement benefits that were equal to or better than those offered by PERS.
- The same statute required these public employers to purchase a $10,000 life insurance policy for their police and firefighters, with a similar exemption if the city provided equal or better benefits.
- The City of La Grande had established a pension and retirement program for its employees through a private contractor.
- The City of Astoria provided retirement benefits for its employees through a collective bargaining agreement.
- Both cities challenged the state's mandate, arguing it interfered with their local authority to manage employee benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cities of La Grande and Astoria filed separate declaratory judgment actions in state trial courts against state officials and their respective employee groups.
- The cities claimed the state statute requiring certain employee benefits violated the 'home rule' provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
- Both trial courts ruled in favor of the cities, finding the statute unconstitutional.
- The defendants appealed the trial court decisions to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed the trial courts' judgments.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law requiring cities to provide specific retirement and life insurance benefits for their police officers and firefighters violate the 'home rule' provisions of the Oregon Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
No, the state law does not violate the home rule provisions. A general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic, or other regulatory objectives of the state prevails over contrary local policies. The court established a new framework for analyzing conflicts between state law and local home rule authority, distinguishing between two types of state laws. First, laws that dictate the 'structure and procedures of local agencies' directly impinge on home rule and are generally invalid unless justified by a need to safeguard interests affected by those local procedures. Second, laws addressed to 'substantive social, economic, or other regulatory objectives' are within the state's power and will preempt conflicting local rules. The court found that the mandatory retirement and insurance benefits for police and firefighters fell into the second category, as they address a statewide social concern for the welfare of a specific class of workers, not the structure of city government. This is distinct from the law struck down in State ex rel Heinig v. City of Milwaukie, which impermissibly dictated the creation and composition of a municipal civil service commission, a matter of local government structure.
Dissenting - Tongue, J.
Yes, the state law violates the home rule provisions. The majority's decision overturns 40 years of precedent established in Heinig, which used a 'predominant interest' test to balance state and local concerns. By replacing this test with a novel 'substance vs. procedure' distinction, the majority creates a rule of 'legislative supremacy' that effectively guts the constitutional protection of home rule. This new framework allows the state legislature to impose expensive social programs on cities without financial responsibility and without recourse to the courts. The dissent argues that the court should have applied the established Heinig test, and that the majority improperly decided the case on a new theory that was not argued by any of the parties, depriving the cities of a fair opportunity to be heard.
Dissenting - Howell, J.
Yes, the state law is unconstitutional. This opinion joins in Justice Tongue's dissent but states a disagreement with some of the 'rhetoric' used.
Dissenting - Bryson, J.
Yes, the state law is unconstitutional. This dissent argues that the court should have followed the 'predominant interest' test from Heinig. Furthermore, the law is unconstitutional because it forces cities to fund a state-mandated program, which effectively compels them to levy local property taxes for a state purpose. This is an indirect violation of state constitutional and statutory limitations on the state's power to levy property taxes, as the state is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Oregon's home rule jurisprudence, moving away from the ad hoc 'predominant interest' balancing test of Heinig to a more categorical framework. The new 'substance vs. procedure' distinction substantially broadens the state legislature's authority to regulate matters that have a local impact, so long as the legislation is framed as addressing a substantive statewide policy goal. This reduces the power of home rule cities to set their own policies in areas of social and economic regulation and makes it harder for them to challenge state mandates on constitutional home rule grounds. The case establishes a strong presumption in favor of state supremacy for any law not directly dictating the organization of local government.
Unlock the full brief for City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Board