Category Archives: Rights of Way

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR v. Chicago, part 2

by • American Political Development, Property, Property Cases, Rights of Way, Supreme Court, Takings

I recently wrote about a foundational case in takings doctrine, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR v. Chicago. Today, I’m going to talk briefly about Justice Brewer’s dissenting opinion in that case, and a little more about the case’s enduring importance in American constitutionalism.

Recall that the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment requires a substantively just outcome, not mere attention to defined procedures. With regards to the specifics of the case, the Court held that the $1 award to the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad for its taken rights-of-way was in fact adequate to satisfy this requirement for substantive justice.

Justice Brewer dissented from the Court’s opinion CBQ RR v. Chicago. He argued that the due process clause does indeed require just compensation, but disagreed with the majority’s finding that the Railroad had in fact received such just compensation. Brewer wrote that “It is disappointing, after reading so strong a declaration of the protecting reach of the fourteenth amendment, and the power and duty of this court in enforcing it as against action by a state by any of its officers and agencies, to find sustained a judgment, depriving a party – even though a railroad corporation – of valuable property without any, or at least only nominal, compensation.”

So in the end, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad won on principle, but lost in practice; the Court agreed that just compensation was due when property was taken, but also held that a nominal award could, at least, be considered “just.”

This case is tremendously important in American constitutional development because it is the first time that Supreme Court held a provision of the Bill of Rights to be enforceable against state and local governments. We call this “incorporation doctrine” – when a provision of the Bill of Rights is held by the Supreme Court to apply to the states it is said to be “incorporated.” Thus, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR v. Chicago marks the beginning of this major transformation in American constitutionalism.

Incorporation has been a long and uneven process, and is still going on today. The first provision incorporated was the subject of today’s post, in 1897. The next provision of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated was the freedom of speech (guaranteed by the First Amendmen), but it was not incorporated until 1925 (Gitlow v. New York). The most recent component of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated against the states was the right to bear arms (guaranteed by the Second Amendment), which was incorporated in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. Moreover, several provisions have yet to be incorporated: freedom from quartering soldiers in peacetime (Amend. III), right to indictment by a grand jury (Amend. V), the right to a jury selected from the state and district where a crime was committed (Amend VI), right to a jury trial in civil cases (Amend VII), and protection against excessive fines (Amend VIII) are not presently incorporated.

Still, it is fair to say that most of major components of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated today. That is why individuals and groups can sue state or local governments in federal courts for many types of alleged rights violations – including violations of speech rights, religious liberty, protections for the accused, and property rights.

Chicago, Burlington  & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago is an important case in the history of takings law, then, because it sets the stage for future battles over property rights in the federal courts. Many well-known modern cases, such as Hawaii v. Midkiff and Kelo v. New London would not have been heard in federal courts if the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment had not been incorporated. It is because of CB&Q Railroad that we are able to talk about these more contemporary cases, which will be the subject of upcoming posts.

Suggested reading:

Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People, Volume II: Transformations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Amar, Akhil Reed. 1998. The Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Corp. v. City of Chicago 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

Ely, James W. 2008. The Guardian of Every Other Right, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR v. Chicago, Part 1

by • American Political Development, Property, Property Cases, Rights of Way, Supreme Court, Takings

The first landmark case in the Supreme Court’s taking’s doctrine after the 14th Amendment was Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Corporation v. City of Chicago, decided in 1897.

The dispute began in 1880, when the Chicago city council decided to connect two disjointed segments of Rockwell Street. The property in between the two segments was owned by a number of private parties. In addition, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Corporation owned a right-of-way over a portion of the land in question. In order to acquire these lands, Chicago invoked its eminent domain power, and petitioned a Cook County Circuit Court to condemn the land, which it did. All of the individual owners were awarded compensation in amounts determined by a local jury. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Corporation was awarded $1.00 for its right-of-way. It probably goes without saying that the railroad company was not pleased.

The railroad appealed the judgment to the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that the condemnation (including the pseudo-settlement) deprived the company of its property without due process of law. That is, they argued that this condemnation violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, sided with Chicago, and affirmed the decision of the Cook County Court. The railroad appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here we should pause our story and consider the claim being made by the railroad company. We saw in our discussion of Barron v. Baltimore that the Court had long held that the Bill of Rights does not apply to states (or cities, by extension). After the Civil War, the Republican majority of the Reconstruction sought to alter this state of affairs by significantly expanding the sphere of federal influence over states. The Supreme Court stopped short of allowing Congress to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states in the first decades after the Civil War (The Slaughterhouse Case and The Civil Rights Cases). This was the backdrop against which The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad appealed the condemnation its rights-of-way to the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago was a major turning point in American constitutional history: the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment required states to award “just compensation” when taking private property for public use. That is, the Court “incorporated” the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause (I’ll explain what that means in part 2 of this post).

Justice Harlan wrote for the Court that the very concept of “due process of law” required that fair and just compensation be given for any private property seized by government. The Court argued that the City of Chicago’s claim that “due process” was fundamentally about procedure was mistaken, and that due process contained a substantive component as well. In Harlan’s words, “In determining what is due process of law, regard must be had to substance, not to form.” He elaborates why this is the case:

“The legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, but it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation. Notice to the owner to appear in some judicial tribunal and show cause why his property shall not be taken for public use without compensation would be a mockery of justice. Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means, therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public.”

That is to say, if “due process” only required governments to observe rules which they (the governments) themselves construct, it would be a poor protection indeed for individuals’ rights – including the property rights at issue in this case. Again, in Harlan’s own words:

“In our opinion, a judgment of a state court, even if it be authorized by statute, whereby private property is taken for the state or under its direction for public use, without compensation made or secured to the owner, is, upon principle and authority, wanting in the due process of law required by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, and the affirmance of such judgment by the highest court of the state is a denial by that state of a right secured to the owner by that instrument.”

Having held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process requirement included a substantively just outcome, Harlan moves on to the actual taking alleged by the Railroad Company. Rather remarkably, seven of the eight justices deciding the case (Chief Justice Fuller did not participate) were persuaded that the $1.00 award the Railroad received for its rights-of-way was in fact sufficient to satisfy due process requirements!

So in summary, the Court held that the Due Process clause required a substantively just outcome and that the $1 award to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Corporation was in fact just. In doing so, the Court fundamentally changed the nature of American constitutionalism. In part 2 of this post, I’ll discuss Justice Brewer’s dissent in this case, and go into more detail on its enduring importance, especially for the law of takings.

Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People, Volume II: Transformations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Amar, Akhil Reed. 1998. The Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Corp. v. City of Chicago 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

Ely, James W. 2008. The Guardian of Every Other Right, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.