Dillon's Rule Reconsidered

Abstract

Dillon's Rule has been a guiding doctrine in the constitutional relations between state and local government for more than a century. Simply stated, it declares that local jurisdictions are the creatures of the state and may exercise only those powers expressly granted them by the state. His torically, this doctrine represented a response to the revolu tionary changes of the latter half of the nineteenth century and was part of the struggle to control and reconcile the often con flicting demands of the old and the new. Though not always at a steady pace, state centralization mounted during this period. Eventually a countermovement emerged, identified with the proponents of home rule. The latter, however, had only a minor impact in arresting the erosion of local autonomy. In the face of the overwhelming political, economic and social forces of the twentieth century fostering centralization, the constitutional controversy originating with Dillon's Rule became less relevant as a determinant of state-local relations. The kind of centralization that eventually emerged was one in which power was concentrated in functionally-defined bureaucracies which essentially transcended geographically- defined levels of government. The recognition of this de velopment fostered new home rule movements aimed at weakening the grip of professional bureaucracies and return ing greater discretionary authority to the political officials at the local level. Such programs as the war on poverty, model cities and revenue sharing represent the attempts to diminish the influence of bureaucracies on local policy.