Gundling v. Chicago
Headline: Court upholds Chicago law requiring a $100 license and mayoral approval to sell cigarettes, allowing the city to fine unlicensed sellers and enforce the licensing fee.
Holding: The Court held that Chicago’s ordinance requiring a $100 license, mayoral approval based on fitness, and penalties for unlicensed cigarette sales does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and is enforceable.
- Requires Chicago cigarette sellers to obtain mayor-approved $100 license or face fines.
- Allows city to fine unlicensed sellers and collect license revenue.
- Permits mayoral discretion based on fitness and bond requirements.
Summary
Background
A man was convicted in a Chicago police court for selling cigarettes without the city license required by a city ordinance. The ordinance requires an applicant to show good character to the health commissioner, obtain the mayor’s approval, post a $500 bond, and pay $100 per year; it also forbids sales near schools and sets fines for violations. The seller did not apply for a license and challenged the law in state courts, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against being deprived of property without due process and equal protection.
Reasoning
The Court framed the main question as whether the ordinance unlawfully gave the mayor arbitrary power or imposed an excessive fee that deprived people of property or equal protection. The opinion distinguished this ordinance from the unfair, race-based denial of licenses in Yick Wo: here the law sets concrete conditions (character, bond, and payment) and the mayor must act on those conditions. The record contained no proof of discriminatory or abusive denial. The Court also held the $100 charge could be a regulatory condition or an occupation tax authorized by the State, and that the state law allowed the city both to regulate the business and collect the fee.
Real world impact
The Court affirmed the state courts and rejected the federal constitutional challenge. As a result, people who sell cigarettes in Chicago must meet the ordinance’s requirements, pay the fee, and obtain mayoral approval or face fines. The ruling leaves the city free to enforce its licensing and fee structure under state authority.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?