City of Kenosha v. Bruno

Background

Owners of taverns and retail liquor businesses in Racine and Kenosha, Wisconsin, applied to renew their one-year liquor licenses. City councils held public "legislative" hearings, heard complaints about nude dancing, and voted to deny renewals. The businesses sued the cities in federal court, arguing the hearings violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, and a three-judge District Court ordered immediate licenses and declared the state licensing statute unconstitutional.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the federal courts properly had civil-rights jurisdiction and whether the lower court had applied the right due-process test. The Court held that the plaintiffs had sued only the cities, and under prior decisions municipalities are not "persons" for purposes of the federal civil-rights statute relied on, so federal civil-rights jurisdiction was not clearly available. The Court therefore vacated the District Court’s judgment and sent the cases back. It instructed the District Court to consider jurisdictional questions and to reconsider the merits in light of recent decisions about property and liberty interests and state power over liquor regulation.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court did not finally decide whether tavern owners are entitled to a full adversary hearing before license renewal denials. Instead, it removed the lower court’s ruling and required the lower court to reexamine both jurisdiction and the due-process question under the guidance of the Court’s recent cases. State authority over liquor regulation remains an important consideration.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan agreed the businesses likely lacked due process protections here, while Justice Douglas questioned the reach of the municipal immunity ruling and urged fuller briefing on that point.