North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago
211 U.S. 306 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or municipality may, under its police power, summarily seize and destroy unwholesome food without a prior hearing for the owner. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is satisfied as long as the owner has an opportunity for a subsequent judicial proceeding to challenge the seizure and seek compensation.
Facts:
- North American Cold Storage Co. operated a cold storage business in Chicago, Illinois.
- The company held in its possession 47 packages of poultry for one of its customers.
- Officials from the Chicago Department of Health inspected the poultry and determined it was putrid and unfit for human consumption.
- Pursuant to a city ordinance, the health officials ordered the company to surrender the poultry for destruction.
- The company refused to surrender the poultry.
- In response, the health officials threatened to prohibit the company from conducting any business until it complied with the order to surrender the poultry.
Procedural Posture:
- North American Cold Storage Co. filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to enjoin Chicago city officials from seizing and destroying its poultry.
- The company alleged that the authorizing city ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The city officials demurred to the bill, effectively moving to dismiss the case.
- The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction, reasoning that the constitutional claim was not substantial enough to create federal jurisdiction.
- North American Cold Storage Co. appealed the dismissal directly 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 municipal ordinance that authorizes the summary seizure and destruction of food deemed unfit for human consumption, without providing for notice and a pre-deprivation hearing for the owner, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Peckham
No, the ordinance does not violate the Due Process Clause. The state has a right and duty under its police power to protect the health of its inhabitants, which includes summarily seizing and destroying food that is unfit for human consumption to prevent the danger of its consumption. Unwholesome food is a nuisance of the most dangerous kind. Due process does not require a hearing before the seizure and destruction because the owner's rights are protected by the availability of a post-deprivation remedy. The health officer's initial determination is not conclusive; the owner can sue the officials for damages for the destruction of the property. In such a lawsuit, the officials bear the burden of proving that the food was, in fact, unwholesome and its destruction was justified under the ordinance. This subsequent opportunity for a judicial hearing satisfies the requirements of due process.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brewer
Mr. Justice Brewer dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that due process is a flexible concept that does not invariably require a hearing before the government deprives an individual of property. It establishes that in emergencies, particularly those involving public health and safety, the government can act summarily (seize and destroy) and provide a hearing afterward. This decision grants significant authority to administrative agencies responsible for public health, allowing them to abate nuisances like unwholesome food swiftly. The precedent set here is crucial for understanding the balance between individual property rights and the state's police power in administrative law.
