Brickerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill

Supreme Court of the United States · 1930 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsdue processFourteenth Amendmentstate court procedurejudicial actiontax litigationadministrative remedyadequate remedy

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that local officials intentionally and systematically assessed bank stock at full value while omitting some property and assessing other property at 75 percent or less of value, making 25 percent of the tax unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. It tendered the 75 percent it conceded was due and sought equitable relief because, it alleged, no legal or administrative remedy existed. Under an earlier Missouri decision, Laclede Land & Improvement Co. v. State Tax Commission, the State Tax Commission lacked power to grant this kind of relief, and that understanding had been consistently followed. In this very case, however, the Missouri Supreme Court overruled that earlier understanding and held that plaintiff should have applied to the Tax Commission before the tax books were delivered, even though by then it was too late to do so.

Issue

Whether due process is violated when a state court denies a taxpayer the only judicial remedy previously available on the ground that the taxpayer failed to pursue an administrative remedy that, under then-settled state law, was not available and later became time-barred. More broadly, whether a state judiciary may, consistent with due process, effectively deprive a party of any real opportunity to be heard in defense of a federal right.

Rule

A State, whether acting through its judiciary or legislature, may not deprive a person of all existing remedies for enforcement of a right the State has no power to destroy unless it affords some real opportunity to protect that right. Due process in its primary sense requires an opportunity to be heard and to defend one's substantive right, and this guarantee applies to judicial action as well as to legislative, executive, or administrative action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Elm Street Custodial Services paid part of a county levy on behalf of its certificate holders and sued in state court to block collection of the remainder, alleging the levy was imposed in a way that denied a federal constitutional right. For years, the Ohio Supreme Court had held that the State Revenue Panel lacked authority to grant that type of relief, and the panel had consistently refused such claims. While the suit was pending, the court overruled those decisions and dismissed the suit because Elm Street had not first applied to the panel before a deadline that had already passed.

Under the majority's rule, what is the strongest federal constitutional objection to the dismissal?

Explanation. Due process, in its primary sense, requires a real opportunity to be heard and defend a substantive federal right. The constitutional defect is not merely that the state court changed its mind, but that it denied the only remedy actually available and substituted an administrative route that settled state law had previously made futile and that was no longer open when newly recognized. That is the rule derived from the majority opinion.