METROPOLIS THEATRE COMPANY
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO

U.S. | 1913-04-07
No. 181
228 U.S. 61 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 730 · 33 S. Ct. 441 · SCDB 1912-143 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2352
Cited by 244 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Chicago's ordinance taxing theatrical admissions at rates based on ticket prices was upheld against a challenge that the classification scheme violated the Fourteenth Amendment by being arbitrarily discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that because ticket price has a natural and substantial relationship to theatre revenue, the classification was rationally grounded and not palpably arbitrary, and that courts should defer to legislative judgments on taxation and classification even if the distinctions seem rough or imperfect.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McKenna

Mr. Justice McKenna delivéred the opinion of the court, after making the above statement.

The attack of complainants (we so call plaintiffs in error) is upon the classification of the ordinance. It is contended that, the purpose of the ordinance is to raise revenue and that its classification has no relation to such purpose and theréfbre is arbitrarily discriminatory, and thereby offends the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Constitution of the United States. The character ..ascribed to the ordinance-by the Supreme Court of. the State is not without uncertainty. But wé may assume, as complainants assert, that the court considered thé ordinance as a revenue measure only.. The court said: “The ordinance may be süstainable under the taxing power alone, without reference to its reasonableness as a regulatory measure.” And, regarding it as a revenue measure, complainants attack it as unreasonable in basing its classification upon the price of admission of a particular theatre and not upon the revenue derived therefrom; and .to exhibit the discrimination which is asserted to result, a comparison is made between the seating capacity of complainants’ theatres and the number of their performances within given periods and the theatres of others in the same respects and the resulting revenues. But these are accidental, circumstances and dependent, as the Supreme Court of the State said, upon the advantages of the particular theatre or choice of its owner, and not determined by the ordinance. It will immediately occur .upon the most casual reflection that the distinction the theatre itself makes is not artificial and must have some relation to the success and ultimate profit of its business. In other words, there is natural relation between the price of admission and revenue, some advantage certainly that determines the choice. The distinction obtains in every large city of the country. The reason for it must therefore be substantial, and if it be so universal in the practice of the business it would seem not unreasonable if it be adopted as the basis of governmental action. If the action of government have such a basis it cannot be declared to be so palpably arbitrary as to be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the test of its validity, as we have so many times said. We need not cite the cases. It is enough to say that we have tried, so far as that Amendment is concerned, to declare in words, and the cases illustrate by examples, the wide range which legislation has in classifying its objects. To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific . But even such criticism should not be hastily-expressed. What is best is ,not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary extercises which, can be declared void under-the Fourteenth Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the brdinance, in controversy. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (82 total)

  • Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Lawton Priest, 67 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1914)
    …te of Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Citizens’ Tel. Co. of Grand Rapids v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Chicago Dock & Canal Co. v. Fraley, 228 U. S. 680, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715; Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Schmidinger v. City of Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182; Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City and County of San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301;…
  • The State of Fla. ex rel. Edward H. Clarkson v. Philips, 70 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1915)
    …ters. Ferguson v. McDonald, 66 Fla. 494, 63 South. Rep. 915; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell, 233 U. S. 304. Sup. Ct. Rep. ; Ohio River and Western Railway Co. v. Ditty, 232 U. S. 576, Sup. Ct. Rep. ; Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Bradley v. City of Richmond, 227 U. S. 477, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318. The burden is on one who complains that he has been denied the equal protection of the laws to sustain the complaint. Peninsular Casualty Co. v. State, 68 Fla.…
  • Gray v. Cent. Fla. Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1932)
    …ent was intended to assure.” Louisville Gas and E. Co. vs. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423, 72 L. Ed. 770, text 774. Ohio Oil Co. vs. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 50 Sup. Ct. Rep. 310, 74 L. Ed. 775; Metropolis Theatre Co. vs. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 57 L. Ed. 730. [*459] It is finally contended that section five of Chapter 14677, Acts of 1931, is in conflict with Section Four of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida. Section Four, Declaration of Rights, Cons…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 82 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (19 total)

View all 19 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw