Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles
227 U.S. 278, 33 S. Ct. 312 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action by a state official, taken under the authority of their office, constitutes state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if that action is illegal under state law. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear such claims without requiring the plaintiff to first exhaust remedies in state court.
Facts:
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. (the appellant) was a California corporation providing telephone service in the city of Los Angeles.
- Under the California state constitution and laws, the City of Los Angeles was granted authority to establish and fix telephone rates.
- The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance setting the telephone rates for the year beginning July 1, 1911.
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. alleged that the rates fixed by the ordinance were unreasonably low.
- The company claimed that enforcing these rates would amount to confiscation of its property.
- The company had submitted to similarly low rates in the prior year, which it argued served as a practical demonstration of the resulting confiscation.
Procedural Posture:
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. sued the City of Los Angeles in the federal Circuit Court (a trial court).
- The company sought an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing a rate-setting ordinance, alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The City of Los Angeles filed a plea challenging the federal court's jurisdiction.
- The city argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the company's complaint alleged facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of the California state constitution, and the company had not first sought relief in state courts.
- The federal trial court agreed with the city's jurisdictional challenge and dismissed the company's bill.
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. then filed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 federal court have jurisdiction to hear a claim that a municipal ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when the action is allegedly also in violation of the state's constitution, before the state courts have ruled on the action's legality under state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice White
Yes. A federal court has jurisdiction over a claim that a state official's action violates the Fourteenth Amendment, even if that action may also violate the state's constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment addresses the misuse of power by a state official, and an official cannot escape federal jurisdiction by arguing their unconstitutional act was also unauthorized by state law. The Court reasoned that the contrary position would paralyze federal judicial power, making state courts the primary arbiters of the U.S. Constitution and rendering the Fourteenth Amendment's protections ineffective. The Amendment applies when a person acting with state authority, or 'clothed with the State's power,' commits a wrong forbidden by the Amendment. The inquiry is not whether the state authorized the specific wrongful act, but whether the official used their state-conferred power to commit it. Therefore, a plaintiff is not required to seek relief in state court before bringing a Fourteenth Amendment claim in federal court.
Analysis:
This case is foundational for the 'state action' doctrine, firmly establishing that actions of state and local officials performed 'under color of law' are subject to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny in federal court. It prevents state actors from using a 'Catch-22' defense where they claim an act was not 'state action' because it was illegal under state law, thereby evading federal constitutional challenges. The decision affirms the role of federal courts as the primary protectors of federal constitutional rights against infringement by state and local governments, without requiring the exhaustion of state remedies. This principle, elaborated in later cases, became the basis for most civil rights litigation against government officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Unlock the full brief for Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles