Comment by Laura L. Gavioli
As the recent legal fights over gun control illustrate, cities in the United States are in a unique position. Cities represent a large constituency and often generate the majority of a state's revenue. However, cities are limited by state law in their power to control their own revenue and shape their own social policies. This Comment suggests that one recent trend—affirmative litigation by cities against corporate wrongdoers—could serve as a new source of revenue for city services, as the litigation uses a city's existing home rule powers. The Comment explores the history of various subjects of city litigation, including tobacco, lead paint, ‘Living Wage,‘ and gun litigation. The Comment addresses some of the obstacles these suits have faced, among them, the argument that the suits are litigation as regulation, the effectiveness of state-level bans on local and special laws, and the nature of a city's sovereign power to sue as parens patriae. Finally, the author asks City Attorneys of New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles whether they believe this litigation model will be viable in the future. The Comment concludes that, while these suits have faced some legal hurdles, the power to sue remains an attractive and necessary tool for American cities.
About the Author
Laura L. Gavioli. J.D. candidate 2004, Tulane University School of Law, 2004; B.A. 1998, Haverford College.
Citation
78 Tul. L. Rev. 941 (2004)