State governments in the United States have the power to impose preemption, removing powers from local governments and retaining them at the state level. This tool allows state legislatures to intervene in local housing issues or reduce local regulations that may be negatively impacting housing supply. The question arises as to under what circumstances should states use preemption and what are the implications of doing so. Longstanding legal precedents support the ability of state legislatures to act decisively in such matters.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This principle applies to housing policies, raising questions about what state governments can and should do to limit the role of local governments in land use regulation that often restricts housing supply and elevates prices and rents. There is a need for guidance for state governments on how to positively impact housing outcomes, particularly for individuals with lower incomes.
Judge John Forrest Dillon played a significant role in establishing the concept of preemption in his decisions regarding municipal corporations. Dillon’s view was that municipal governments derive their powers and rights wholly from the state legislature, which can abridge and control those powers as it sees fit. He emphasized that any doubt about the powers granted to local governments should be resolved against the corporation, denying them that power. Dillon’s premise shaped the relationship between state and local governments with regards to power distribution.
The Dillon Rule has become established law in the United States, stating that local governments can only exercise powers explicitly given to them or reasonably connected to those powers. States have the duty to control and conserve resources for the benefit of all inhabitants, establishing their authority over municipal governments. Unless a state constitution establishes home rule for local governments, giving them the autonomy to govern themselves without conflict with the constitution, the state is considered a Dillon Rule state. This rule has shaped the balance of power between state and local governments in housing policy decisions.
In 1923, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles of the Dillon Rule in a case regarding water resources, highlighting the state’s authority to control and conserve resources for the benefit of its residents. This decision reiterated the limitations on local governments’ inherent right of self-government beyond the legislative control of the state. The Dillon Rule continues to guide state decisions regarding preempting local governments in various policy areas, including housing supply and regulation. States must carefully consider the implications of preemption and ensure they are acting in the best interests of all residents.
The debate over when and how states should preempt local governments in housing policy decisions continues to be a topic of discussion. State legislatures have the power to intervene in local housing issues or reduce local regulations that may be impeding housing supply. As state governments consider the implications of preemption, they must carefully examine the legal precedents, including the Dillon Rule, and work towards positively impacting housing outcomes, particularly for marginalized communities. The balance between state and local authority in housing policy decisions requires thoughtful consideration and collaboration to address the housing needs of all residents effectively.
