Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois
146 U.S. 387 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state holds title to the lands submerged under its navigable waters in trust for the public. The state cannot abdicate this public trust by granting a private corporation control and ownership of an entire harbor or a substantial portion thereof.
Facts:
- The State of Illinois was admitted to the Union in 1818, acquiring sovereignty over the lands submerged beneath the navigable waters of Lake Michigan within its borders.
- In 1851, Illinois chartered the Illinois Central Railroad Company (ICRR) to construct a railroad, granting it a right-of-way but requiring it to obtain consent from any city before building tracks within its limits.
- In 1852, the City of Chicago passed an ordinance granting ICRR permission to lay tracks along the lakefront on submerged land, which ICRR then reclaimed and built upon.
- Over the years, ICRR also acquired title to various lots fronting the lake and, asserting riparian rights, constructed piers, wharves, and other structures into the lake for its business.
- In 1869, the Illinois Legislature passed the Lake Front Act, which purported to grant ICRR fee simple title to over 1,000 acres of submerged land forming the bed of the Chicago harbor.
- In 1873, the Illinois Legislature passed an act repealing the 1869 Lake Front Act.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney General of Illinois filed an information or bill in equity in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against the Illinois Central Railroad Company and the City of Chicago.
- On petition by the railroad company, the case was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The City of Chicago filed a cross-bill against the State and the railroad company for affirmative relief.
- The U.S. Circuit Court found that the 1869 grant to the railroad was revocable and had been validly repealed by the 1873 act, issuing a decree largely in favor of the State.
- The Illinois Central Railroad Company, the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois all filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 legislature have the authority to grant a private railroad corporation fee title to the submerged lands constituting the bed of a major public harbor, and if such a grant is made, may a subsequent legislature repeal it?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
Yes, a state may repeal such a grant because the initial grant was invalid. A state holds title to submerged lands under navigable waters in a trust for the people of the state, so that they may enjoy navigation, commerce, and fishing. This public trust is a governmental responsibility that the state cannot abdicate. While the state can grant small, specific parcels for uses that promote the public interest, such as building wharves or docks, it cannot cede control over an entire harbor to a private party. Such a wholesale grant is a breach of the public trust and is not a binding, irrepealable contract, but is instead a revocable action. Therefore, the 1873 repeal of the 1869 grant was a valid exercise of the state's sovereign power to resume its trust responsibilities.
Dissenting - Justice Shiras
No, a subsequent legislature may not repeal the grant. A state's ownership of submerged lands is absolute, and it has the full power to convey them to a private party. The 1869 Act was a valid legislative grant that created a binding and irrepealable contract between the State of Illinois and the railroad company. The size of the grant is a matter of legislative discretion, not judicial review. The subsequent repeal by the 1873 legislature was an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation of contract, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the public trust doctrine as a fundamental principle of American property law. The doctrine limits the power of state governments to alienate public resources, particularly submerged lands under navigable waters. The decision affirmed that a state's ownership of such lands is not proprietary, like a private owner, but is a sovereign trust that must be managed for the public good. This precedent has been instrumental in protecting public access to waterways, preventing the wholesale privatization of shores and harbors, and shaping modern environmental law concerning public resources.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois