## Facts

- The Madison Common Council adopted a 1975 city budget containing appropriations challenged by Victoria Hopper, a city resident and taxpayer.
- Hopper sought to enjoin expenditures for three items:
  - $10,000 to the City Planning Department for “human resource services” to be provided by the Madison Tenant Union (MTU).
  - $14,000 to the City Planning Department for “human resource services” to be provided by the Spanish-American Organization (SAO).
  - $81,517 to the City Department of Public Health for a day-care program.
- Hopper alleged the MTU and SAO items unlawfully funded private organizations that benefited only certain citizens and would place expenditures beyond city control.
- Hopper alleged the day-care appropriation was unlawful because no detailed program was established at the time of budgeting.
- On summary judgment, Hopper narrowed her challenge to the claim that the appropriations violated the Wisconsin constitutional requirement that public funds be spent only for a public purpose.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, holding the appropriations served public purposes and dismissing the action.

## Issues

1. Whether appropriations to MTU and SAO—private organizations providing services to tenants and Spanish-speaking/migrant residents—violated the public-purpose doctrine because they primarily benefited limited classes rather than the public at large.
2. Whether the appropriation for a city-administered day-care program violated the public-purpose doctrine because it directly served only participating families and allegedly lacked an established program plan at the time of appropriation.
3. Whether the challenged appropriations also violated municipal statutory limits or due process and equal protection guarantees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the City and denied injunctive relief.
- The court held that the MTU appropriation served a public purpose because improving landlord-tenant relations and housing conditions advances community welfare even if services are directed to tenants.
- The court held that the SAO appropriation served a public purpose because assisting Spanish-speaking/migrant residents with integration and access to services supports general welfare and community stability.
- The court held that the day-care appropriation served a public purpose because day care supports child welfare and parental employment and addresses an identified shortage of facilities.
- The court rejected the claim that use of private organizations rendered the appropriations unconstitutional where the appropriations’ objectives were public and the absence of public purpose was not clear.
- Having found the expenditures lawful as public-purpose appropriations, the court found no basis for separate statutory, due process, or equal protection relief.

## Legal Principles

- Public funds must be expended primarily for a public purpose; incidental private benefit does not invalidate an appropriation when the dominant objective is public.
- “Public purpose” is construed broadly in light of contemporary social and economic conditions.
- Courts give substantial deference to municipal determinations of public purpose and will invalidate an appropriation only when the absence of a public purpose is clear.
- An expenditure may serve a public purpose even if it is targeted to a limited segment of the population, so long as the program reasonably promotes the general welfare.
- A municipality may use private entities to deliver services consistent with a public purpose; the constitutional inquiry focuses on the appropriation’s objective rather than the provider’s private status.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Madison’s appropriations to two nonprofit service providers and to a municipal day-care program, holding that each was reasonably aimed at community welfare and therefore satisfied Wisconsin’s public-purpose doctrine, with judicial review limited to cases where the lack of public purpose is clear.


Hopper v. City of Madison, 256 N.W.2d 139 (Wis. 1977)