Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915)

Facts

  • Colorado’s State Board of Equalization and Tax Commission ordered a uniform 40% increase in the valuation of all taxable property in the City and County of Denver.
  • Bi-Metallic Investment Company owned real estate in Denver and alleged the increase would raise its tax burden.
  • Bi-Metallic sought to enjoin the state entities from enforcing the order and to prevent the local assessor from implementing it.
  • Bi-Metallic argued the order was adopted without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  • The order applied across the board to all Denver property owners and did not involve individualized determinations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for each affected property owner before a state body adopts a generally applicable order increasing property valuations citywide.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit.
  • The Court held that due process did not require individualized notice and hearing before adoption of a general, uniformly applicable valuation increase.
  • The Court addressed only the federal due process question and did not reconsider state-law remedial or equitable-policy matters.
  • The Due Process Clause does not require individualized notice and hearing when government action is rulemaking or quasi-legislative in character and affects a large number of persons equally.
  • Procedural due process hearing requirements generally attach to administrative actions that determine rights based on individual grounds and affect a small, identifiable group in a particularized way.
  • For broadly applicable governmental decisions, democratic accountability through the political process is the principal safeguard rather than individualized participation in the decision.
  • Practical limits on administration permit government to adopt generally applicable measures without providing every affected person a direct opportunity to argue before adoption.

Conclusion

A uniform, citywide increase in property valuation is a generally applicable governmental measure for which the Fourteenth Amendment does not require individualized notice and an opportunity to be heard; affected taxpayers’ protection lies in political accountability and ordinary mechanisms for contesting individual assessments where applicable.