'Home Rule' vs. 'Dillon's Rule' for Washington Cities

53 Pages Posted: 18 Apr 2015 Last revised: 7 Feb 2016

See all articles by Hugh D. Spitzer

Hugh D. Spitzer

University of Washington - School of Law

Date Written: April 16, 2015

Abstract

This Article focuses on the tension between the late-nineteenth-century “Dillon’s Rule” limiting city powers, and the “home rule” approach that gained traction in the early and mid-twentieth century. Washington’s constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government, so long as local regulations do not conflict with general laws. The constitution also vests charter cities with control over their form of government. But all city powers are subject to “general laws” adopted by the legislature. Further, judicial rulings on city powers to provide public services have fluctuated, ranging from decisions citing the “Dillon’s Rule” doctrine that local governments have only those powers clearly granted to them by the legislature, to the “home rule” view that charter and optional code cities have broad unspecified powers. Despite actions by lawmakers to expand city home rule powers, recent court decisions have puzzled practitioners by alternately voicing these two approaches in a seemingly random fashion.

This Article describes the origin of Dillon’s Rule, places it in a national context, and explains its longevity in Washington despite the legislature’s clear intent to eliminate the rule’s application to most cities. The Article suggests that the zombie-like reappearance of Dillon’s Rule is explained by (1) the vitality of the rule as a doctrine applicable to special purpose districts; (2) appellate judges’ insistence on picking and choosing from doctrines (including ostensibly dead doctrines) to support a case’s outcome; and (3) a combination of doctrinal forgetfulness and carelessness. The Article repeats a recommendation made five decades ago by former University of Washington law professor Philip Trautman that the Supreme Court of Washington should adopt a more consistent approach, one that follows the legislature’s clear intent to make Dillon’s Rule inapplicable to most cities.

Keywords: home rule, Dillon's rule, local government, municipal government, cities, legal history, Washington State constitution, Progressive Era, police power, charter city government, public service power, state constitutional law

Suggested Citation

Spitzer, Hugh D., 'Home Rule' vs. 'Dillon's Rule' for Washington Cities (April 16, 2015). Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 809-60, 2015; University of Washington School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-11. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595265

Hugh D. Spitzer (Contact Author)

University of Washington - School of Law ( email )

Box 353020
Seattle, WA 98195-3020
United States
206-685-1635 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: https://www.law.washington.edu/directory/profile.aspx?ID=470

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
270
Abstract Views
2,087
rank
113,627
PlumX Metrics