North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago

Supreme Court of the United States · 1908 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDue ProcessPolice PowerPublic HealthFourteenth Amendmentdue processpolice powerpublic health

Facts

Chicago, acting under state-delegated authority, had an ordinance authorizing health officials to seize and destroy food deemed unwholesome or unfit for human consumption. The complainant alleged that officials intended to seize and destroy poultry in its cold storage without any judicial determination, notice, or opportunity to be heard. For purposes of the appeal, complainant abandoned reliance on allegations that officials had unlawfully stopped its general business and focused solely on whether the ordinance was unconstitutional for lacking a pre-destruction hearing. The general state power to regulate public health and to seize and destroy actually unwholesome food was not disputed.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require notice and an opportunity to be heard before public officials may seize and destroy food alleged to be unwholesome and unfit for human consumption under a public health ordinance? Also, did the federal circuit court have jurisdiction to decide that constitutional challenge?

Rule

A state or municipal enactment aimed at protecting public health may authorize the summary seizure and destruction of food that is unwholesome and unfit for human consumption without a prior hearing, so long as the owner's rights are preserved by a later judicial action in which the seizing officials must justify the destruction by proving the food was in fact within the statute. Due process does not require a pre-deprivation hearing in this setting, because the property is treated as a dangerous nuisance and the legislature may decide that immediate action is necessary.

🔒

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.

Seattle authorizes health inspectors to seize and immediately destroy fish held for sale if they find it spoiled and unfit for human consumption. The ordinance provides no notice or hearing before destruction, but the warehouse owner may later sue the inspectors for damages, and the inspectors prevail only if they prove the fish was in fact spoiled.

If the warehouse owner argues that due process always requires a hearing before the fish is destroyed, how should a court rule?

Explanation. Due process is satisfied where the State, acting under its police power to protect public health, authorizes summary seizure and destruction of food that is unwholesome and unfit for human consumption, so long as the owner is not conclusively bound by the officers' ex parte determination and may later obtain a judicial determination. In that later action, the officials must justify the destruction by proving the food was in fact within the statute. (Derived from North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago (1908).)