Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois

Decided in 1892 by the U.S. Supreme Court, Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois was a foundational case for the Public Trust Doctrine. The case revolved around whether the State of Illinois could grant submerged lands beneath Lake Michigan to a railroad for its own use, or whether submerged lands in navigable waters were to be maintained in the public trust.

In a 4-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Illinois could not transfer ownership of lands submerged beneath navigable waters, because navigable waters were to be held and maintained for public use. The decision has been called the "lodestar" of American Public Trust Law.

The Public Trust Doctrine has become central to climate litigation across the globe. Over time, the doctrine has been extended beyond navigable waters to require that states maintain other natural resources in a public trust for the preservation of future generations.

Background
In 1869, the Illinois legislature passed an act granting ownership of a large part of Lake Michigan shoreline and waters along the Chicago lake front to the Illinois Central Railroad. In 1873, the legislature repealed the 1869 act and brought a suit seeking to have the grant invalidated. The case ultimately made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state's argument rested upon the Public Trust Doctrine, the idea that it was the state's duty to preserve public access to navigable waters for the use of the public to carry out such activities as navigation, commerce, and fishing.

Relevant Principles and Laws

 * Public Trust Doctrine

Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in favor of Illinois, invalidating the original grant of the lakeshore to the railroad. The decision rested upon the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that navigable waters were a resource that was to be maintained for public usage, specifically for navigation, commerce, and fishing.

Takeaways
The case was an important step in establishing the Public Trust Doctrine in the United States. It has been remarked that the ruling is itself rather narrow, only applying the Public Trust Doctrine to navigable waters for the purpose of maintain the right of the public to navigation, commerce, and fishing. It also has not been interpreted to rule out the privatization of all public trust resources, merely a level of privatization that would make the resource no longer usable or accessible to the public.

Nevertheless, the ruling helped establish a Public Trust Doctrine that has since been expanded, both in the United States but especially in other countries. The Public Trust Doctrine has been an integral part of landmark climate litigation cases such as Juliana v. United States and Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan.

Links

 * Case Decision