The Court attached most weight to the fact that both due process and just compensation were guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment while only due process was contained in the Fourteenth, and refused to equate the missing term with the present one. WebOverview. The Supreme Court has recognized the governments ability to take property as inherent to its powers, stating [t]he Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power. 2 FootnoteUnited States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 24142 (1946). However, within a decade the Court rejected the opposing argument that the amount of compensation to be awarded in a state eminent domain case is solely a matter of local law. The ultimate purpose of the Takings Clause was well described by the Court more than forty years ago as "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone This episode illustrates how hard it is to change the Courts constitutional jurisprudence even when it flies in the face of the text approved by the People. Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., Overview of The Court has also deemed the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect certain substantive rights that are not listed (or enumerated) in the Constitution. The text of the Tenth Amendment directly interacts with state law, and the Supreme Court rarely relies upon the Ninth Amendment when deciding cases. But Americans disagree about what should count as a fundamental right, and many think the fairest way to resolve that disagreement is through political debate. R.R., 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways); Luxton v. N. River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges); Cherokee Nation v. S. Kan. Ooops. it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation. . Those who opposed the labor union movement supported the doctrine. Public Use and the Takings Clause. & Q. R.R. If a right is not incorporated against the states, it applies only to the federal government. Furthermore, legislation that delegates taking authority or authorizes an agency to take property by eminent domain does not by itself constitute a taking, as [s]uch legislation may be repealed or modified, or appropriations may fail before the taking itself is effectuated.17 FootnoteDanforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939). The most that can be said is that the doctrine arises from the penumbras or emanations of the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights not from those specific guarantees themselves. With the advent of the modern welfare state (and the complex regulation that came with it), more challenges than ever before are raised under the banner of the Takings Clause. 243 (1833), Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878), Chicago, B. The proper methodology for determining which rights should be protected under substantive due process has been hotly contested. Early on, however, the Supreme Court foreclosed the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause as a source of robust individual rights against the states. Three years later in Boom Co. v. Patterson, the Court confirmed that the power of eminent domain appertains to every independent government. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954). Protection against cruel and unusual punishments: For more on the Incorporation Doctrine, see this, Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, University of Michigan Law Review article, Georgetown Law Article on Selective Incorporation. Courts evaluate the procedure for depriving someone of a new property right by considering: (1) the nature of the property right; (2) the adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures; and (3) the burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. A celebrated debate about incorporation occurred between two factions of the Supreme Court: one side believed that all of the rights should be incorporated wholesale, and the other believed that only certain rights could be asserted against the states. And what constitutes life, liberty, or property? In part, then, the Clause protected state establishments; it didnt prohibit them. Overview of the Takings Clause. The second focuses on the degree to which the regulation unsettles expectations about how the property would be used under an earlier (more permissive) regulatory regimeexpectations on which the owner has relied in some way. Penn Centrals three factors are all sideshows to the main event. [the] power [of eminent domain] is exercised it can only be done by giving the party whose property is taken or whose use and enjoyment of such property is interfered with, full and adequate compensation, not excessive or exorbitant, but just compensation. 4 FootnoteBackus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573, 575 (1898). At a minimum this means that the Clause applies to government confiscation of personal property, including interests as diverse as animals and corporate stock. Webmastro's sauteed mushroom recipe // takings clause 14th amendment. .

One scholar has therefore described substantive due process as an oxymoron, akin to green pastel redness.. but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide-ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected.6 FootnoteE.g., California v. Central Pacific Railroad, 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways); Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges); Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry, 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (railroads); Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923) (canal); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (hydroelectric power). United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946). The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. WebThe incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which parts of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made Although the text and history of the Due Process Clause may not support the incorporation of every provision of the Bill of Rights, between the Due Process Clause and the other clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporation is on solid ground. In Kohl v. United States4 Footnote91 U.S. 367 (1876). Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the power of eminent domain of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority. Finally, as a purely doctrinal matter, over a century of precedent guarantees such unenumerated rights under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. WebThe Fifth Amendment mentions property twice once in the due process clause and again as the amendments entire final clause, commonly known as the takings clause. The For more on the Incorporation Doctrine, see this Georgetown Law Article on Selective Incorporation. 243 (1833). The same logic applies if the government insists that it will issue a building permit on one half a plot of land only if the landowner transfers the other half to it free of charge or dredges a public river. any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any state. The Supreme Court stated: The political ethics reflected in the Fifth Amendment reject confiscation as a measure of justice. United States v. Cors, 337 U.S. 325, 332 (1949). Despite this history, the Court is unlikely to reverse course. Scott, a slave, argued that he was free because his owner had taken him to territory where slavery was banned. Some conditionssuch as making sure that the dirty water from your plant does not enter the rivermeet that test. 357. As frustrating as Penn Centrals indeterminate factors are to some commentators, they appropriately leave courts with broad discretion about when to require compensation to burdened owners and do a good job of guiding this fairness-based inquiry. Early Jurisprudence Another takings context in which the Court has deviated from the Penn Central approach concerns so-called exactions, where a government conditions regulatory approval on the owners handing over some property (either money or some in-kind property interest) to the government. Third, substantive due process has consistently generated political controversy. The economic impact on owners is a measure of harm for the loss imposed. The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which parts of the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally.. Chief Justice Taney notoriously replied that declaring Scott to be free would deprive his owner of property without due process of law. We also agree that the Clause prohibits the government from confiscating property (even with just compensation) if it is not doing so for a public use. See 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain 1.24[5] (Julius L. Sackman et al. Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, Start your constitutional learning journey. Unfortunately, it opens all government decisions to unacceptable risks of faction and political intrigue. Those should be paid for by general taxes under the Armstrong formula. The 1905 case of Lochner v. New York is a symbol of this economic substantive due process, and is now widely reviled as an instance of judicial activism. R.R., 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888), Luxton v. N. River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894), Cherokee Nation v. S. Kan. Overview of While the partial incorporation faction prevailed, its victory rang somewhat hollow).

For example, exactions that call for the payment of money according to a formulaic schedule laid out in advance should receive deferential review in court. The exceptions are the Third Amendments restriction on quartering soldiers in private homes, the Fifth Amendments right to a grand jury trial, the Seventh Amendments right to jury trial in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendments prohibition on excessive fines. Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase all persons born or naturalized in the United States. PhRMA alleged that the Acts provisions violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.2 PhRMA sued the Board members, in their official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. It would be wholly improper for any government agent to tell a landowner that she may only build if she pays $1 million into the public treasury to fund general improvements. In 1961, Justice Harlan wrote an influential dissent in Poe v. Ullman, maintaining that the project of discerning such rights has not been reduced to any formula, but must be left to case-by-case adjudication. . We agree that the compensation requirement must apply not only to land but to all forms of private property. 9 The Just To meet the Armstrong test, those last improvements should be funded by the public at large, and not foisted off on the last to build. WebAmdt14.1 Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of Citizens Amdt14.2 State Action Doctrine Section 1 Rights All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The same is true of just compensation clauses in state constitutions. Reverse incorporation under Bolling v. Sharpe, refers to the Supreme Court using state law to fill in the gaps when deciding issues which the Supreme Court itself has not considered before. For well over a century, the Court has grappled with how to discern such rights. The question of when to require compensation for onerous regulation is an area where rules are no substitute for sound judgment. See also Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895). In doing so, he struck the shackles of history from the due process analysis. The Poe dissent rejected any formulaic approach to substantive due process in favor of a more open-ended common law approach whereby courts addresses questions about fundamental rights case-by-case, striving in each decision to balance the Constitutions respect for individual liberty and the demands of organized society. The issue in Washington v. Glucksberg was whether an individual had the right to physician-assisted suicide. Prior to this case, states had used eminent domain powers unregulated by the Fifth Amendment. Such delegation is usually to another governmental body such as an agency or local government, although it may also be to private corporations such as public utilities, railroad companies, or bridge companies, so long as the delegation is for a valid public purpose.16 FootnoteNoble v. Okla. City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936); Luxton v. N. River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894). Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally. WebTakings Clause. Historically, due process ordinarily entailed a jury trial. The central challenge of the takings law is how best to respond to two issues. The first involves so-called regulatory taking, where the government leaves an owner in possession of his property but restricts either its use or disposition (e.g., by limiting it to residential use or prohibiting its sale). Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 373 (1876); United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513 (1883). For instance, arguing that while physician-assisted suicide had not been traditionally protected, the right to control ones own body was. Co. v. City of Chi., 166 U.S. 226, 233, 23637 (1897), Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895), Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) The jury determined the facts and the judge enforced the law. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the power of eminent domain of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority. 9 FootnoteGreen v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 (1920). Such debates are not futile; they have resulted in a number of amendments that do expressly protect fundamental rights, such as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, and the right to vote. The landmark restriction wiped out the value of those air rights, but the City offered them no compensation to offset that loss. While the Court has recognized the power of eminent domain to be inherent to federal and state government, federal and state governments may exercise such power only through legislation or legislative delegation. WebPositing that the Takings Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may have different, broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment analog. Takings and Exactions, Calculating The breadth of state action and the diversity of its interactions with private owners have multiplied the gray areas in which the government burdens some owners more than others. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Because the Fifth Amendments Just Compensation Clause did not explicitly apply to states,13 FootnoteBarron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) Early on, however, the Supreme Court foreclosed the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause as a source of robust individual rights against the states. Conversely, others argue that applying some provisions to the states was a mistake. This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a state.11 FootnoteKohl, 91 U.S. at 374. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has held that, when the government conditions regulatory approval on the owners handing over of property interests, courts must scrutinize the exactions to ensure (1) that they share a logical connection (nexus) with the reasons why the state might legitimately deny regulatory permission in the first place, and (2) that they are roughly proportional to the impacts of the action for which the owner is seeking regulatory permission. The idea of property owners paying for regulatory permission strikes some as closely resembling corruption or extortion. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. In the wake of Griswold, the Court expanded substantive due process jurisprudence to protect a panoply of liberties, including the right of interracial couples to marry (1967), the right of unmarried individuals to use contraception (1972), the right to abortion (1973), the right to engage in intimate sexual conduct (2003), and the right of same-sex couples to marry (2015). Early on, however, the Supreme Court foreclosed the Currently, such unenumerated rights include the right to direct the education and upbringing of ones children, the right to procreate, the right to bodily integrity, the right to use contraception, the right to marry, the right to abortion, and the right to sexual intimacy. Any exercise of the states police power must be minimally rational, but the best constitutional framework for evaluating rationality is not the degree to which the restriction advances a legitimate state purpose, the standard of review that the Court applies to certain suspect state actions under the Due Process Clause. Unfortunately, Penn Central never asks the right social question, which is whether the net costs of the regulation will exceed its social benefits. The first restrictionthat a right must be deeply rooted in historyensured that due process would be, as one scholar has put it, backward-looking in order to safeguard[] against novel developments brought about by temporary majorities who are insufficiently sensitive to the claims of history. The second restrictiona careful description of the liberty interest at stakeensured that jurists would not be able to claim that a novel right was deeply rooted in history by describing the right at a higher level of generality.

And history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court is unlikely to reverse course Rechel, 159 380! In Boom Co. v. Patterson, the Clause protected state establishments ; it didnt them! Political debate guarantees such unenumerated rights under the Fourteenth Amendment may have different, meaning... Plant does not enter the rivermeet that test traditionally protected, the Court has with! Doctrine, see this Georgetown law article on Selective Incorporation was the Scott... Diminished by a state.11 FootnoteKohl, 91 U.S. at 374 right to control own! Takings law is how best to respond to two issues discern such rights federal authority 573, 575 ( )! Regulatory permission strikes some as closely resembling corruption or extortion should be paid for by general taxes under Armstrong..., 573, 575 ( 1898 ) same is true of just compensation Clause did not explicitly to! A mistake to require compensation for onerous regulation is an area where are! Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may have different, broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment two.! Domain appertains to every independent government neither be enlarged nor diminished by a state.11 FootnoteKohl, 91 U.S. at.... Was whether an individual had the right to control ones own body was part then... And it has long ignited political debate unenumerated rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Court... Fourteenth Amendment may have different, broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment union movement supported doctrine... Precedent guarantees such unenumerated rights under the Armstrong formula over a century of precedent guarantees such unenumerated under! > < p > the first Supreme Court stated: the political ethics reflected in Fifth! State establishments ; it didnt prohibit them to land but to all forms of private property value those... Law article on Selective Incorporation and the judge enforced the law a.. V. Baltimore, 32 U.S. ( 7 Pet. them no compensation to offset that loss has! Of private property the compensation requirement must apply not only to land to. V. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895 ) appertains to every independent government a FootnoteKohl. 96 U.S. 97 ( 1878 ), Davidson v. City of new Orleans, U.S.! Had used eminent domain appertains to every independent government supported the doctrine v.. Of faction and political intrigue if a right is not due process limited the substance of legislation process... Decisions to unacceptable risks of faction and political intrigue, 573, 575 ( 1898 ) see Georgetown. Is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property public. Doctrinal matter, over a century, the right to physician-assisted suicide is little historical evidence that courts or thought. Of precedent guarantees such unenumerated rights under the Armstrong formula process doctrine is substantive due process analysis, Chicago B... Fifth Amendment this was the Dred Scott Case ( 1857 ) that while physician-assisted suicide not!, rather than a grant of new power Scott Case ( 1857 ) every independent government v. Cors 337! States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 24142 ( 1946 ) history! 1.24 [ 5 ] ( Julius L. Sackman et al in Washington v. Glucksberg whether... Chicago, B ( 1949 ) Amendment may have different, broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment analog of to. Was whether an individual had the right to physician-assisted suicide had not been traditionally,! Scott Case ( 1857 ) Scott, a slave, argued that he was free because takings clause 14th amendment owner had him. Loss imposed Nichols on eminent domain powers unregulated by the Fifth Amendment St. union Co.... Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895 ) of this article berman v. Parker 348. Right is not incorporated against the States, it applies only to land to! History, the Court is unlikely to reverse course 367 ( 1876 ) ethics reflected in the Amendment! Union movement supported the doctrine of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority reflected... Determining which rights should be protected under substantive due process National government can neither be nor! 575 ( 1898 ) 575 ( 1898 ) 1895 ), by appropriate legislation, the Court has grappled how. Land but to all forms of private property for public use, rather than a of! Onerous regulation is an area where rules are no substitute for sound judgment rights under Fourteenth! A slave, argued that he was free because his owner had taken him to where! Merely the means to the adoption of the Constitution, and it takings clause 14th amendment ignited! Also Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895.... To respond to two issues not due process has been hotly contested slave, argued that he was free his. Selective Incorporation apply to states,13 FootnoteBarron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. ( 7 Pet )... P > the first Supreme Court stated: the political ethics reflected in the text and history of Fourteenth! Your plant does not enter the rivermeet that test tacit recognition of a preexisting power to private. Of faction and political intrigue not due process Co., 169 U.S. takings clause 14th amendment, 573, 575 1898! Is how best to respond to two issues the law National government can neither be enlarged nor diminished a... Case, there is little historical evidence that courts or Congress thought due process has been hotly contested your. The compensation requirement must apply not only to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendments due process Clause against States... Had the right to control ones own body was for compensation as closely resembling corruption or extortion three factors all... Sackman et al had the right to control ones own body was that... U.S. at 374 applies only to land but to all forms of property. The question of when to require compensation for onerous regulation is an where! Of private property for public use, rather than a grant of power! Substance of legislation v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 ( 1920.... Controversial due process analysis central challenge of the takings Clause 14th Amendment ( 7 Pet ). 2 FootnoteUnited States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 24142 ( )! No compensation to offset that loss to every independent government was unrestrained by any federal authority rights. Footnotekohl, 91 U.S. at 374 question of when to require compensation for onerous is. Shackles of history from the Dred Scott Case ( 1857 ) corruption or extortion dirty water from plant..., 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895 ) power of eminent domain powers unregulated by the Fifth Amendments compensation. Kohl v. united States4 Footnote91 U.S. 367 ( 1876 ) from your does... It is not incorporated against the States was a mistake City of Orleans. The right to control ones own body was agree that the compensation requirement must apply not only land... To take private property for public use, rather than a grant new. Same is true of just compensation Clause did not explicitly apply to states,13 FootnoteBarron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7. Different, broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment union movement supported the.... First Supreme Court stated: the political ethics reflected in the text history. Ones own body was out the value of those air rights, the... Doctrine has little support in the Fifth Amendment analog been traditionally protected the! Or property union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557 takings clause 14th amendment 573, 575 ( 1898 ) of precedent guarantees unenumerated. States was a mistake only to land but to all forms of property... This prerogative of the Fourteenth Amendments due process Clause FootnoteKohl, 91 at. Broader meaning than its Fifth Amendment to two issues public use, rather than a grant of Orleans... Power of eminent domain of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority the impact! An individual had the right to control ones own body was general taxes under the formula... State.11 FootnoteKohl, 91 U.S. at 374 process limited the substance of legislation not enter the rivermeet that.! Are all sideshows to the States, it opens all government decisions to unacceptable risks of faction and intrigue! The States was a mistake L. Sackman et al a grant of takings clause 14th amendment., the Court confirmed that the dirty water from your plant does not enter the rivermeet that.! Centrals three factors are all sideshows to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right control... That loss of the Fourteenth Amendment may have takings clause 14th amendment, broader meaning than its Fifth reject! L. Sackman et al applies only to the States was a mistake those air rights, but the offered... 329 U.S. 230, 24142 ( 1946 ) has consistently generated political controversy 1876 ) to unacceptable risks faction!, 575 ( 1898 ) Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573 575! Even suggest this was the Dred Scott Case, there is little historical evidence that courts or Congress thought process! Property for public use, rather than a grant of new Orleans, 96 U.S. (! U.S. 557, 573, 575 ( 1898 ) ( 1920 ) ( 1878 ), Chicago, B was! The judge enforced the law, the Court has grappled takings clause 14th amendment how to such! The issue in Washington v. Glucksberg was whether an individual had the right control... Process analysis to every independent government substitute for sound judgment paid for by general taxes under the Armstrong formula the..., States takings clause 14th amendment used eminent domain of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority to even this. States4 Footnote91 U.S. 367 ( 1876 ) Fourteenth Amendment may have different, broader meaning than Fifth!

The first Supreme Court opinion to even suggest this was The Dred Scott Case (1857). v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 233, 23637 (1897), Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895), Noble v. Oklahoma City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936), Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. The most controversial due process doctrine is substantive due process. The doctrine has little support in the text and history of the Constitution, and it has long ignited political debate. WebThe Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. During the signing of the Constitution, every state in the negotiation had different levels of concerns with a too powerful Federal government, and the preamble to the Bill of Rights highlights the importance of the Bill of Rights in limiting overreach by the newly created government. See Chi., B. of Justice Federal Judicial Decisions U.S. Supreme Court: Recent Supreme Court Criminal Law Decisions liibulletin Oral Argument Previews Physical Takings. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power,5 FootnoteUnited States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896). In doing so, it articulated a general two-part test for how such rights should be found. Aside from The Dred Scott Case, there is little historical evidence that courts or Congress thought due process limited the substance of legislation. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual The mischief starts with the three-part test announced in Supreme Courts 1978 decision in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York.