Also known as: public health safety morals or general welfare · police power · state police power
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View casePacific 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.
In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View casePerry 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.
The New York legislature passed a labor law in 1897 that regulated bakeries and confectionery establishments. Section 110 of article 8 of that law stated that no employee shall be required or permitted to work more than sixty hours in any one week or more than ten hours in any one day. This applied unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last day of the week. The plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employe working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week. The charge arose from a voluntary contract rather than any use of physical force. The judgments of the County Court of Oneida County, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals of New York upheld the conviction under the statute, although several judges dissented. The record indicated that the state courts had viewed the law as a measure relating to public health. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States after argument on February 23 and 24, 1905. The Court rendered its decision on April 17, 1905.
View casePhoebe 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.
In the late 1990s the city of New London, Connecticut, confronted severe economic decline after the 1996 closure of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people. The city's unemployment rate stood nearly double the state average and its population had dropped below 24,000 residents from a 1970 high of 30,000. State and local officials therefore designated the Fort Trumbull peninsula for targeted economic revitalization. In 1998 the New London Development Corporation, a private nonprofit entity, was reactivated to prepare a redevelopment plan covering roughly 90 acres. The plan divided the area into seven parcels designated for a waterfront conference hotel and marinas, retail and entertainment space, research and office facilities, parking and park support, residential units, a Coast Guard museum, and additional office and retail uses. The city council formally approved the plan in January 2000 and authorized the NLDC to acquire needed parcels by purchase or, if necessary, by eminent domain. Petitioners Susette Kelo, Wilhelmina Dery, and seven other owners held fifteen properties within parcels 3 and 4A; ten of those parcels were occupied by the owners or their family members and none was alleged to be blighted. After negotiations with the NLDC failed, the corporation initiated condemnation proceedings against the remaining properties in November 2000. In December 2000 the petitioners filed suit in New London Superior Court asserting that the proposed takings violated the public-use limitation of the Fifth Amendment. Following a seven-day bench trial the Superior Court entered a permanent restraining order barring condemnation of the parcel 4A properties but denied relief as to the parcel 3 properties. Both sides appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of all challenged takings. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the federal constitutional question.
View caseThe 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.
…in the exercise of its delegated powers. But to agree that religiously grounded conduct must often be subject to the broad police power of the State is not to deny that there are areas of conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and thus beyond the power of the State to control, even under…