Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913). · Go Syfert
Search
Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61 (1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Practical problems of government may justify rough accommodations that appear illogical or unscientific (basis: practical problems of government may justify rough accommodation).

Theater owners sought to enjoin a city ordinance that required license fees for places of amusement based on the price of admission. The plaintiffs argued that the classification was arbitrary and discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not correlate to the actual revenue derived by the theaters. The court held that the distinction between theaters based on admission prices is not artificial, as price relates to business success and revenue. Because the classification is not palpably arbitrary, the ordinance is valid. The court noted that the practical problems of government may justify rough accommodations that are illogical or unscientific.

1,195 citation events (167 in the last 25 years) across 131 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mech. Contractors Ass'n of New Jersey v. State of New Jersey, 541 F. Supp. 3d 477 (D.N.J. 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 1914 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1914 1970 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 69 Government problems justifying rough accommodations125 citing cases“the problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations - illogical, it may be, and unscientific.”55 citing courts quote it · also cited as 57 L. Ed. at 734; 33 S. Ct. at 443 · 120 listed here
  • Mech. Contractors Ass'n of New Jersey v. State of New Jersey, 541 F. Supp. 3d 477 (D.N.J. 2021).published 2 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations.)
  • Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993).published
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific)
  • Women's Elevated Sober Living LLC v. City of Plano, No. 4:19-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2021).
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations—illogical, it may be, and unscientific.)
  • Vong v. Aune, 328 P.3d 1057 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).published 3 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, — illogical, it may be, and unscientific)
  • Beverly Beal v. Benton Cnty., No. W2013-01290-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2014).published 6 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations—illogical, it may be, and unscientific)
  • State v. Granger, 982 So. 2d 779 (La. 2008).published 3 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.)
  • Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 513 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 2008).published 7 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations—illogical, it may be, and unscientific.)
  • Retail Indus. Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder, 435 F. Supp. 2d 481 (D. Md. 2006).published 3 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.)
  • Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2000).published 3 cites
    (The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations....)
  • People v. Lee, 2023 IL App (4th) 220779, 239 N.E.3d 646.published
    However, the legislature is entitled to make laws “ ‘based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.’ ” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993) (quoting Federal Communications Comm’n v. Beach Communications, Inc.,…
Show 110 more citing cases
At page 68 Justifying rough accommodations in government practice7 citing cases“The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations--illogical, it may be, and unscientific”1 citing court quotes it · 6 listed here
  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991).published 2 cites
    “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific”
  • Vanater v. Vill. of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 (S.D. Ohio 1989).published
    If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicely or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbo…
  • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985).published
  • Sasso v. Ram Prop. Mgmt., 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).published
  • Yost v. Schweiker, 545 F. Supp. 591 (D.S.D. 1982).published
  • Smith v. State, 444 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1969).published
At page 70 scientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily-expressed. What is best is ,not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or…1 citing caseopening of page *70 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Williams v. Cnty. of Washington, No. 2:23-cv-01668 (E.D. Wis. July 30, 2025).
    Amendment.” Smith, 457 F.3d at 655 (quoting Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 70 (1913)).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
METROPOLIS THEATRE COMPANY
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO
No. 181.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 7, 1913.
Published opinion
228 U.S. 61
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2352
Mr.. Alfred S. Austrian, with whom Mr. Levy Mayer was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error:, Mr. Charles M. Haft, with whom Mr. William H. Sexton was on the brief, for defendants in error:
McKenna.
Cited by 391 opinions  |  Published
7 passages pin-cited by 9 cases
Citer courts: Third Circuit (7) · Court of Appeals of Tennessee (6) · Court of Appeals of Arizona (3) · First Circuit (3) · Supreme Court of Louisiana (3) · D. Maryland (3) · E.D. Texas (1)
Mr. Justice McKenna

delivéred the opinion of the court, after making the above statement.

The attack of complainants (we so call plaintiffs in error) is upon the classification of the ordinance. It is contended that, the purpose of the ordinance is to raise revenue and that its classification has no relation to such purpose and theréfbre is arbitrarily discriminatory, and thereby offends the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Constitution of the United States. The character ..ascribed to the ordinance-by the Supreme Court of. the State is not without uncertainty. But wé may assume, as complainants assert, that the court considered thé ordinance as a revenue measure only.. The court said: “The ordinance may be süstainable under the taxing power alone, without reference to its[*69] reasonableness as a regulatory measure.” And, regarding it as a revenue measure, complainants attack it as unreasonable in basing its classification upon the price of admission of a particular theatre and not upon the revenue derived therefrom; and .to exhibit the discrimination which is asserted to result, a comparison is made between the seating capacity of complainants’ theatres and the number of their performances within given periods and the theatres of others in the same respects and the resulting revenues. But these are accidental, circumstances and dependent, as the Supreme Court of the State said, upon the advantages of the particular theatre or choice of its owner, and not determined by the ordinance. It will immediately occur .upon the most casual reflection that the distinction the theatre itself makes is not artificial and must have some relation to the success and ultimate profit of its business. In other words, there is natural relation between the price of admission and revenue, some advantage certainly that determines the choice. The distinction obtains in every large city of the country. The reason for it must therefore be substantial, and if it be so universal in the practice of the business it would seem not unreasonable if it be adopted as the basis of governmental action. If the action of government have such a basis it cannot be declared to be so palpably arbitrary as to be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the test of its validity, as we have so many times said. We need not cite the cases. It is enough to say that we have tried, so far as that Amendment is concerned, to declare in words, and the cases illustrate by examples, the wide range which legislation has in classifying its objects. To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonstrate its invalidity. It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and un[*70]scientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily-expressed. What is best is ,not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary extercises which, can be declared void under- the Fourteenth Amendment; and such judgment cannot be pronounced of the brdinance, in controversy. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59.

Judgment affirmed.