66 Pages Posted: 6 Nov 2017 Last revised: 13 Nov 2017
Date Written: October 28, 2017
When cities are involved in litigation, it is most often as defendants. However, in the last few decades, cities have emerged as aggressive plaintiffs, bringing forward hundreds of mass-tort style claims on behalf of their constituents. From suing gun manufacturers for the scourge of gun violence, bringing actions against banks for the consequences of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and initiating claims against pharmaceutical companies for opioid-related deaths and injury, plaintiff cities are using litigation to pursue the perpetrators of the huge social harms that have devastated their constituents and their communities.
Many courts and commentators have criticized these plaintiff city claims on numerous grounds. They argue that, as a doctrinal matter, cities lack standing, fail to meet causation standards, and stretch causes of action like public nuisance beyond all reasonable limits. Further, they argue that, as a theoretical matter, plaintiff cities are impermissibly using litigation as regulation, overstepping their limited authority as “creatures of the state,” and usurping the political and legislative process. This Article demonstrates that each of these critiques is mistaken. Plaintiff city claims are legally, morally, and sociologically legitimate. And, as a practical matter, they are financially feasible, even for cash-strapped or bankrupt cities. Moving beyond mere economic accounting, though, plaintiff city claims have value of a different sort: political currency. In short, plaintiff cities use litigation as a form of statebuilding. By serving as plaintiffs and seeking redress for the harms that impact a city’s most vulnerable residents, plaintiff cities are defining and demanding recognition not just for those impacted constituents, but also for themselves, as distinct and meaningful polities. In so doing, plaintiff cities are renegotiating the practical and theoretical meaning of cities in the political order, and opening up new potential paths for urban social justice.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation