Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh
1907 U.S. LEXIS 1211, 28 S. Ct. 40, 207 U.S. 161 (1907)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature has supreme power over its municipal corporations and may alter their boundaries, consolidate them, or modify their charters without the consent of the municipalities or their inhabitants, and such actions do not impair contract obligations or deprive citizens of property without due process of law under the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- Pennsylvania's General Assembly passed an act allowing for the consolidation of two adjacent cities if a majority of the total votes cast in both cities combined favored the merger.
- The City of Pittsburgh initiated proceedings under the act to consolidate with the neighboring City of Allegheny.
- An election was held on the question of consolidation.
- A majority of the total votes cast across both Pittsburgh and Allegheny favored the consolidation.
- However, a majority of the voters within the City of Allegheny cast their ballots against the consolidation.
- Plaintiffs were citizens, voters, and property-owning taxpayers in the City of Allegheny.
- As a result of the consolidation, Allegheny residents and their property would become subject to the taxation and governance of the newly enlarged City of Pittsburgh.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Pittsburgh filed a petition in the Pennsylvania Court of Quarter Sessions to initiate consolidation proceedings with the City of Allegheny.
- Hunter and other Allegheny citizens (plaintiffs in error) filed exceptions to the petition, which were dismissed by the court.
- Following an election, the Court of Quarter Sessions entered a decree consolidating the two cities.
- The Allegheny citizens appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed the lower court's decree.
- The citizens then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which also affirmed the decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 that authorizes the consolidation of a smaller city with a larger city, based on an aggregate majority vote of the combined population but against the will of the majority of voters in the smaller city, violate the Contract Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Moody
No. A state law compelling the consolidation of two cities against the will of one does not violate the Contract Clause or the Due Process Clause. Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising state power. The state legislature possesses absolute authority to create, alter, or destroy these corporations, expand or contract their territory, and consolidate them, with or without the consent of their citizens. There is no contract between a city and its citizens that protects them from such changes, nor does the imposition of new tax burdens resulting from a consolidation constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law under the Federal Constitution. The state's power in this regard is supreme.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that municipal corporations are "creatures of the state," possessing no inherent rights of self-government or permanent existence that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. It establishes that the state's power over its political subdivisions is plenary, meaning citizens cannot use the federal Contract Clause or Due Process Clause to challenge state-mandated annexations, consolidations, or charter modifications, even if those actions result in significant financial burdens. This decision effectively forecloses federal constitutional challenges to the restructuring of local governments by state legislatures, affirming that such matters are questions of state policy and state constitutional law, not federal law.
