Also known as: public health safety morals or general welfare · police power · state police power
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard that justifies government regulation of private property when the measure bears a substantial relation to protecting the community from harm or promoting collective well-being.
Penelope Price owns land on the edge of a growing town. The town enacts an ordinance dividing areas into residential and commercial zones and bars her from building a factory on her parcel. The classification advances orderly development and reduces traffic congestion near homes. A court upholds the ordinance because the restrictions advance public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Prime Logistics seeks a map amendment allowing a warehouse on a single lot surrounded by single-family homes. The city council grants the change after a hearing but offers no evidence that the isolated use serves any community goal. A court invalidates the amendment because it fails to bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paula Pierce lives with her grandson and two great-grandchildren in a single-family zone that defines family to exclude such households. The city enforces the limit to preserve neighborhood character. A court holds the ordinance invalid because the restriction does not advance public health, safety, morals, or general welfare when applied to extended family living arrangements.
Pacific Bank owns Grand Central Terminal. New York City designates the building a landmark and bars alterations that would destroy its historic features. The bank claims the rules destroy development rights. A court upholds the designation because the restrictions substantially relate to the promotion of general welfare through preservation of architectural heritage.
Perry Pratt owns a bakery. A state statute caps bakery employees at ten hours per day. The law is defended as protecting worker health. A court strikes the statute because the limit lacks a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Phoebe Park owns waterfront property. The city condemns the parcel as part of a plan to create a mixed-use development expected to increase tax revenue and jobs. A court sustains the taking because the project serves a public purpose tied to general welfare even though the land is transferred to private developers.
The phrase supplies the constitutional test for valid exercises of the police power. An ordinance survives if its classification is reasonable and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Yes. Any rezoning must still bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Spot zoning that singles out one parcel without a public purpose fails the test.
A regulation survives a due process challenge when it is not arbitrary and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Courts apply the same standard to both facial and as-applied claims.
Yes. Restrictions that promote general welfare through historic preservation satisfy the standard when they apply even-handedly and leave viable uses intact.
…be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, supra , pp. 530-531; Jacobson v. Massachusetts , 197 U. S. 11, 30-31. It is true that when, if ever, the provisions set forth in the ordinance in tedious…