Hadacheck v. Sebastian

Supreme Court of the United States · 1915 · Property

PropertyConstitutional Lawpolice powerzoningbrickyardnuisancepolice powerland use

Facts

Los Angeles adopted an ordinance making it unlawful to establish or operate a brick yard or brick kiln within a described district of the city. Petitioner owned about eight acres within that district containing valuable clay deposits and had long used the land for brickmaking, having erected kilns, machinery, and buildings for that purpose before the area was annexed to the city. He alleged the land was far more valuable for brickmaking than for other uses and that enforcing the ordinance would effectively destroy his business. The return and supporting affidavits asserted that the district had become primarily residential and that fumes, gases, smoke, soot, steam, and dust from petitioner's operations caused sickness and serious discomfort to nearby residents.

Issue

May a city, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit operation of a brick yard within a defined district under its police power, even though brickmaking is a lawful business and the owner had previously invested heavily in the site and used it for that purpose? Did this ordinance amount to an arbitrary, discriminatory, or monopolistic deprivation of property or denial of equal protection?

Rule

The police power extends to prohibiting a lawful business in particular circumstances and localities when the business's operation affects the health and comfort of the community, even if the business is not a nuisance per se and even if prior investments are thereby greatly diminished. The limitation is that the power may not be exercised arbitrarily or with unjust discrimination; courts must accord good faith to the legislative body absent a clear showing to the contrary.

🔒

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 Phoenix, the city council bars the operation of commercial asphalt-mixing plants within a defined district that has recently filled with homes and apartment buildings. Omar Vega has run such a plant on his lot for years and argues the business is lawful, useful, and not a nuisance everywhere it operates.

If nearby residents present evidence that smoke, grit, and odor from the plant regularly make living in the district uncomfortable, which is the strongest argument for upholding the ordinance?

Explanation. The majority held that even a lawful business that is not a nuisance per se may be prohibited in particular circumstances and localities under the police power when its operation adversely affects the health and comfort of the community. The key limit is that the measure cannot be arbitrary or unjustly discriminatory. The city need not show the activity is a nuisance everywhere, and diminished property value alone does not invalidate the regulation.