Quinn v. Millsap
491 U.S. 95 (1989)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Quinn v. Millsap, 491 U.S. 95 (1989)

Quinn v. Millsap

No. 88-1048

Argued April 25, 1989

Decided June 15, 1989

491 U.S. 95

Syllabus

Article VI, § 30, of the Missouri Constitution (hereafter § 30) provides that the governments of the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County may be reorganized by a vote of the electorate upon a plan of reorganization drafted by a "board of freeholders." The State Circuit Court interpreted "freeholder" as not entailing a condition of property ownership and, with only a tentative discussion of the Equal Protection Clause, entered a declaratory judgment that § 30 is valid both on its face and as applied to the present board of freeholders. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, but relied exclusively on its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and held that that Clause had no relevancy, because the board does not exercise general governmental powers.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 491 U. S. 101-104.

2. The Missouri Supreme Court's ruling that the Equal Protection Clause had no relevancy to the case because the board of freeholders exercises no general governmental power reflects a significant misreading of this Court's precedents. The fact that the board serves only to recommend a plan of reorganization to the voters, and does not enact any laws of its own, cannot immunize it from equal protection scrutiny. Pp. 491 U. S. 104-106.

3. A land-ownership requirement for appointment to the board of freeholders violates the Equal Protection Clause, Turner v. Fouche,396 U. S. 346; Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport District,431 U. S. 159; it is a form of invidious discrimination to require land ownership of all appointees to a body authorized to propose reorganization of local government. Pp. 491 U. S. 106-109.

757 S.W.2d 591, reversed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Page 491 U. S. 96

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.