The Supreme Court and State Police Power, 1922-1930. IV

The Road to Euclid v. Ambler: City Planning, State-Building, and the Changing Scope of the Police Power

“…218 With this important caveat, the court accepted the idea that within the context of a comprehensive zoning plan, municipal authorities could exercise the same regulatory power over non-nuisances as they had over nuisances, as a general rule. 219 Sutherland did this by embracing several of the key contentions that zoning advocates made: strict nuisance analogies should not constrain the application of the police power; a comprehensive plan allowed public officials to restrict property in ways that were otherwise unjustifiable;…”

“…Yet what person in his sense would think of planning a governmental scheme for a continent under which nine men at the national capital should decide whether a zoning boundary should be extended another one hundred feet before it turns a corner? 236 Another observer similarly concluded that "as soon as the courts enter into the reasonableness of zoning laws with such minuteness and detail as to determine the value of each property affected by it, the courts become administrative rather than legal tribunals." 237 This placed lower courts, which were inundated with such cases, in a difficult position as they searched for general rules to guide their microscopic review of zoning ordinances.…”