Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois
146 U.S. 387 (1892)
Illinois gave the ICR a land
grant that included some Chicago waterfront (including submerged land in
the harbor). IRC proceeded to build a wharf
There was some shady
dealings going on that led to the grant.
A few years later, a less
corrupt Illinois legislature came into power, realized what a bad deal it
was, and voted to revoke the land grant. IRC objected.
IRC argued that they had a
contract and a reliance interest in keeping the land grant.
The US Supreme Court found
that Illinois had the right to revoke the land grant.
The US Supreme Court found
that submerged waters are held in trust by the States.
See Martinv. Waddell's Lessee (41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842)).
The Court found that the
legislature cannot alienate (aka permanently sell) lands that they hold
in trust.
The Court basically found
that the State could temporarily lease some State land to a private
entity, as long as that entity was using the land for 'the public good',
but the State had ultimate responsibility to make the land was being used
correctly. That responsibility meant that they had the authority to
revoke the land grant at any time.
This is known as the Public
Trust Doctrine.
The Court did note that
Illinois was required to pay IRC for expenses incurred for the
improvements they made to the land (e.g. the cost of the wharf).
The Public Trust Doctrine basically says that the State cannot completely
abdicate control over lands that they are holding in the public trust.
"The trust devolving
upon the State for the public, and which can only be discharged by the
management and control of property in which the public has an interest,
cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property."
There are two justifications
often given for the Public Trust Doctrine:
The State always has the
right to take private property via Eminent Domain.
The State has the right to
act in the public's interest pursuant to the States Police Powers.
Interestingly, the Public
Trust Doctrine is only applicable to
the States. To date it has not been used in cases involving land owned
by the Federal government.