Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice, and may be outdated research.

The concept of “home rule” emerged as a culmination of attempts by municipalities to impose limitations on the state’s power to deal with local issues.  In common law, municipalities exercised only powers authorized by the state legislature.  Local entities were dissatisfied with the status of local governments being creatures of and sub-servient to the state legislature.  People ex. rel. E. Allen Bernardi v. City of Highland Park, 121 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (1988). 

The home rule movement sought independent control of matters of local concern, free from interference by the state legislature.  United States Elevator Corp. v. City of Tulsa, 610 P. 2d 791 (1980).

This movement diverted the state legislature’s time to state-wide policy making instead of purely local matters.  Home rule also sought to obtain, for local entities, broad authorizations to undertake and enforce local programs and policies regarding matters not covered by state legislative enactments.  People ex. rel. E. Allen Bernardi v. City of Highland Park, 121 Ill. 2d at 11.  Broad delegations of power mitigated the necessity of legislative authorization.

The principle home rule problem was the determination of which matters were state and which were local.  Significant issues relating to home rule were:  (1) whether the particular activity fell within the authorized sphere of home rule, (2) whether the overlap of state and local law was legally consistent.