People Ex Rel. Scott v. Chicago Park District
360 N.E.2d 773, 66 Ill.2d 65, 4 Ill. Dec. 660 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the public trust doctrine, a legislative grant of submerged lands held in trust for the public to a private entity is void if the grant's primary purpose is to benefit a private interest. The public purpose served must be direct and substantial, not merely an incidental or indirect benefit such as general economic development.
Facts:
- In 1963, the Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 782, which authorized the sale of 194.6 acres of submerged land in Lake Michigan to United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel).
- The purchase price for the land was set at $19,460.
- The conveyance was also conditioned upon the Chicago Park District reconveying to the State its interest in the land.
- U.S. Steel planned to reclaim the land and construct an expansion of its existing South Work's Plant.
- The submerged land at issue is located adjacent to Rainbow Park, a public beach, and the U.S. Government breakwater protecting Calumet Harbor.
- In 1973, U.S. Steel tendered its payment of $19,460 to the State Treasurer, but the payment was returned three days later.
Procedural Posture:
- The Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County (a court of first instance) seeking a declaratory judgment that Senate Bill 782 was void.
- The Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and State Comptroller, originally named as defendants, were realigned as plaintiffs.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the bill was void.
- United States Steel Corporation, as defendant, appealed the judgment directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 legislative act authorizing the conveyance of 194.6 acres of submerged land under Lake Michigan to a private corporation for the construction of a steel plant violate the public trust doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Ward
Yes, the legislative act violates the public trust doctrine. The State holds title to submerged lands in trust for the people, and this trust cannot be relinquished by transferring the property to a private entity for a primarily private purpose. Citing the seminal case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, the court affirmed that the state's control over these lands can only be ceded for parcels used to promote public interests, such as for wharves or docks, or when it does not substantially impair the public interest in the remaining waters. Here, the direct and dominating purpose of the grant is to benefit a private corporation. The claimed public benefits of increased employment and economic stimulus are too indirect, intangible, and elusive to satisfy the requirement of a public purpose. Such benefits are incidental, whereas the primary purpose must be for the public good to justify such a grant.
Dissenting - Justice Underwood
No, the legislative act does not violate the public trust doctrine. The court's prior decision in Droste v. Kerner, which dealt with the same statute, should be binding under the doctrine of res judicata, as the court had to address the act's validity to establish its jurisdiction. On the merits, the General Assembly's 1963 determination that the conveyance was in the public interest should be given deference. The legislature weighed the undeniable economic benefits of the plant's expansion—a major employer in the state—against other factors and concluded the grant was a net positive for the public. The judiciary should not substitute its judgment or apply modern standards retroactively to overturn a legislative decision that was not clearly erroneous at the time it was made.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the public trust doctrine in Illinois and sets a high bar for future conveyances of public lands to private parties. By rejecting indirect economic benefits as a sufficient public purpose, the court established that the primary purpose of such a grant must be a direct public benefit, such as recreation or navigation. This ruling curtails legislative power to dispose of public natural resources for private commercial development and empowers courts to conduct a 'most critical examination' of such legislative acts, reflecting a modern shift toward greater environmental and resource conservation.
