NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: December 10, 2024
S24A0963. HOLLIS et al. v. CITY OF LAGRANGE.
WARREN, Justice.
In 2023, plaintiffs Lonnie Hollis and Mason’s World Bar &
Grill, LLC, filed a putative class action against the City of LaGrange
(“the City”), arguing that it imposed excessive mandatory charges
for utilities services that it provided, which constituted a tax that
was not authorized by the Georgia Constitution or by law. The City
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the trial court
granted the motion, ruling that the Georgia Constitution prohibited
the court from “engag[ing] in the regulation” of the utilities charges.
The plaintiffs now appeal, contending that the trial court erred by
concluding that it lacked authority to review the plaintiffs’ legal
claims. We agree, so we vacate the trial court’s judgment and
remand the case for further proceedings.
1. As pertinent to this appeal, the record shows the following.
In January 2023, the plaintiffs—City residents that paid for utilities
services that were provided by the City—filed a putative class action
complaint, alleging that the City imposed “excessive mandatory
rates and charges for the provision of essential municipal utility
services consisting of electric, gas, water, and sewer service for
which [the plaintiffs] and the putative class have no alternative
service provider”; that the charges “generate[d] profits in excess of
the actual cost to the City of providing such services”; and that these
profits were used to “rais[e] general revenues for the City in lieu of
lawful property taxes,” such that the excessive profits constituted
“illegal taxes.” In this respect, the complaint asserted that the
excessive profits that the City obtained from the utilities charges
constituted a tax under the test set forth in Bellsouth
Telecommunications, LLC v. Cobb County, 305 Ga. 144, 146-147
(824 SE2d 233) (2019).1 And the tax was illegal, the complaint
1 In Bellsouth, we explained that generally, we consider four criteria in
determining whether a charge is a tax, which we have defined as:
2
asserted, because it was not expressly authorized by the Georgia
Constitution or by law, as required by Article IX, Section IV,
Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution of 1983.2 The plaintiffs
sought “a refund of the illegal taxes” under OCGA § 48-5-3803 with
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; a declaration that the
utilities charges that were in excess of the actual cost of providing
utilities services and that were used to generate general revenue for
(1) a means for the government to raise general revenue based on
the payer’s ability to pay (i.e., income or ownership of property),
without regard to direct benefits that may inure to the payer or to
the property taxed; (2) mandatory; (3) not related to the payer’s
contribution to the burden on government; and (4) not resulting in
a “special benefit” to the payer different from those to whom the
charge does not apply.
305 Ga. at 146-147.
2 That provision says, in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided
in this Paragraph, the governing authority of any county, municipality, or
combination thereof may exercise the power of taxation as authorized by this
Constitution or by general law.”
3 OCGA § 48-5-380 says, in pertinent part:
(a) As provided in this Code section, each county and municipality
shall refund to taxpayers any and all taxes and license fees:
(1) Which are determined to have been erroneously or illegally
assessed and collected from the taxpayers under the laws of
this state or under the resolutions or ordinances of any county
or municipality; or
(2) Which are determined to have been voluntarily or
involuntarily overpaid by the taxpayers.
3
the City constituted “an illegal tax”; and an injunction to prevent the
City from assessing and collecting “such illegal tax.”
In March 2023, the City filed an answer to the complaint,
generally denying that its utilities charges were “illegal taxes,” and
in May 2023, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
At a hearing on the motion, the City argued that the trial court was
not authorized to regulate municipal public utilities charges because
Article III, Section VI, Paragraph V (d) of the Georgia Constitution
generally prohibits the General Assembly from “regulat[ing] or
fix[ing]” such charges.4 To that end, the City asserted that “a judge
can’t do what the General Assembly can’t do” and contended that
the trial court was thus required to be “hands off in this area.” The
plaintiffs responded that Paragraph V (d) did not limit the trial
court’s authority to review their legal claims.
In February 2024, the trial court issued an order granting the
City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. After briefly
4 That provision says: “The General Assembly shall not have the power
to regulate or fix charges of public utilities owned or operated by any county or
municipality of this state, except as authorized by this Constitution.”
4
recounting the plaintiffs’ arguments, the court quoted several
provisions of the Georgia Constitution, including Paragraph V (d),
and concluded:
The Georgia Constitution authorizes the City . . . to enter
into the business of providing water, gas, electricity[,] and
sewer services. And the Constitution prohibits the
General Assembly from regulating the fees or charges for
such services. By logical extension, this court cannot
engage in the regulation of fees or charges for such
services. The [plaintiffs] do not state a cause of action
because of the clear statement of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs now appeal, contending that the trial court incorrectly
ruled that Paragraph V (d) prevented it from addressing their
claims.
2. (a) We understand the trial court’s order as follows. First,
it appears that the trial court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims
that the City’s utilities charges constituted an “illegal tax” would
require the court, in reviewing those claims, “to regulate or fix
charges of public utilities owned or operated by . . . [a] municipality”
pursuant to Paragraph V (d). The trial court then concluded that it
could not “regulate or fix” the City’s utilities charges because
Paragraph V (d) generally prohibits the General Assembly from
5
“regulat[ing] or fix[ing]” such charges. Apparently accepting the
City’s argument that “a judge can’t do what the General Assembly
can’t do,” the trial court ruled that Paragraph V (d) prevented the
court from reviewing the allegations in the complaint. It thus
determined that the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
should be granted because the plaintiffs’ allegations failed as a
matter of law. 5
(b) We conclude that the trial court erred by determining that
Paragraph V (d) prevented it from reviewing the allegations in the
complaint, and by granting the City’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings on that basis. In interpreting a constitutional provision,
“[w]e generally apply the ordinary signification to words,” meaning
that “we afford the constitutional text its plain and ordinary
meaning, view the text in the context in which it appears, and read
5 In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “‘all wellpleaded material allegations of the opposing party’s pleading are to be taken
as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are
taken as false. A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only
if the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.’” Polo Golf & Country Club
Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Cunard, 306 Ga. 788, 791-792 (833 SE2d 505) (2019)
(citation omitted), disapproved on other grounds by Cobb County v. Floam, 319
Ga. 89 (901 SE2d 512) (2024).
6
the text ‘in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary
speaker of the English language would.’” Ga. Motor Trucking Assn.
v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 301 Ga. 354, 356 (801 SE2d 9) (2017)
(citation omitted).
The constitutional provision at issue here—Paragraph V (d)—
is part of Article III (titled “Legislative Branch”), Section VI (titled
“Exercise of Powers”) of the Georgia Constitution. Paragraph V (d)
expressly restricts the power of “[t]he General Assembly” to
“regulate or fix charges of public utilities owned or operated by . . .
[a] municipality.” By its plain text, this provision sets forth the
limited scope of the General Assembly’s legislative authority to
regulate or fix municipal public utilities charges. The text of
Paragraph V (d) does not mention the judicial branch at all—which
is no surprise, given that this provision is housed in a section of the
Georgia Constitution that pertains to the exercise of legislative
power. Cf. Domingue v. Ford Motor Co., 314 Ga. 59, 64 (875 SE2d
720) (2022) (concluding that because the plain text of a statute did
“not mention, let alone expressly restrict,” the admission of certain
7
evidence at trial, the statute did not preclude the admission of such
evidence). And even if it did, the plaintiffs’ claims that the City’s
excessive charges for utilities services constituted an “illegal tax” do
not require the trial court to “regulate or fix” the City’s utilities
charges as a matter of discretionary policymaking. Rather, the
claims ask the court to exercise its judicial authority to determine
whether or not the charges are in fact taxes in the first place. Cf.
Bellsouth, 305 Ga. at 146-151 (determining whether a charge
imposed by two counties on telephone-service subscribers was “a tax
or a fee”).
Paragraph V (d) thus has no bearing on the trial court’s judicial
power to review the plaintiffs’ legal claims, and therefore does not
bar the trial court’s review of those claims. And no party has
otherwise challenged the judiciary’s authority to review a case of
this type if properly presented. See generally Ga. Const. of 1983,
Art. I, Sec. II, Par. V; Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. I;
Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408, 429-432 (801 SE2d 867) (2017)
(explaining the doctrine of judicial review and noting that “[t]he
8
Judicial Review Clause is merely a constitutional recognition of the
inherent authority of a court to resolve conflicts between the
Constitution itself and the statutory law, when the resolution of
such conflicts is essential to the decision of a case already properly
before the court”).
In short, the trial court erred by determining that Paragraph
V (d) precluded the court from reviewing the plaintiffs’ claims.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case
for the court to address the City’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings in a manner consistent with this opinion. 6
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the
Justices concur.
6 We express no opinion on the merits of the City’s motion. We note,
however, that we recently issued a decision involving similar claims that a city
imposed unlawful taxes through charges billed to municipal utility customers.
See Jones v. City of Atlanta, Case No. S24A0652, 2024 WL 4633416, at *2-5
(decided Oct. 31, 2024). Like in this case, we could not reach the merits of the
city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, because the trial court failed to
correctly apply the legal standard for reviewing such motions, see footnote 5
above. As a result, we vacated the trial court’s ruling granting the city’s motion and remanded the case. See id. at *6-7. See also id. at *10-11 (Bethel, J.,
concurring) (highlighting points the trial court may want to consider on
remand with respect to conducting an analysis of the merits of that case).
9
PETERSON, Presiding Justice, concurring.
I concur in full in the Court’s opinion. The trial court’s ruling
was based on the City’s argument that the Georgia Constitution
prohibits the General Assembly from regulating or fixing public
utility charges, and therefore courts can’t regulate or fix those
charges, either, because what the General Assembly can’t do, courts
can’t do. We reverse the trial court’s decision on a narrow basis:
Plaintiffs’ claims require the trial court only to exercise judicial
power, not to regulate or fix public utility charges. I write separately
to offer an observation on what strikes me as more fundamental
flaws in the City’s argument.
The United States Constitution famously prohibits Congress
from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech[.]”7 U.S.
7 The federal constitution is often a poor analogue to use when thinking
about the scope of the General Assembly’s legislative power; the General
Assembly’s powers are considerably broader than the powers of Congress.
Congress has only enumerated powers (i.e., anything not expressly or
implicitly authorized in the United States Constitution is prohibited), while
the Georgia General Assembly has plenary powers to legislate in any manner
not prohibited (i.e., anything not expressly or implicitly prohibited is
authorized). See DeKalb County School Dist. v. Georgia State Bd. of Educ., 294
Ga. 349, 352 (751 SE2d 827) (2013); Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 553 (208 SE2d
93) (1974).
10
Constitution, Amendment I. That prohibition has long been
interpreted as extending beyond Congress, though, and imposing
similar restrictions on the rest of the federal government, see New
York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (91 SCt 2140, 29
LE2d 822) (1971), and the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment, see Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652,
666 (45 SCt 625, 69 LEd 1138) (1925) and Stromberg v. People of
State of Cal., 283 U.S. 359, 368 (51 SCt 532, 75 LEd 1117) (1931).
And so it may seem natural, at first glance, to assume that
limitations on Georgia’s legislative branch extend to the other
branches.
A second glance – at least by a textualist – may suggest a
different answer. As a simple matter of logic, a limitation on the
exercise of a particular power by a particular branch says little-tonothing about a different branch.
But a third glance, it seems to me, yields what may be a more
accurate answer: it depends. At least three contexts occur to me in
which a limitation on the General Assembly’s exercise of legislative
11
power may well effectively pass through to other government
entities.
First, limitations on the General Assembly’s power to
appropriate funds may well effectively pass through to the
government entities that receive appropriations. Take, for example,
the Gratuities Clause. See Ga. Const. Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. VI (a)
(“Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, (1) the General
Assembly shall not have the power to grant any donation or gratuity
or to forgive any debt or obligation owing to the public, and (2) the
General Assembly shall not grant or authorize extra compensation
to any public officer, agent, or contractor after the service has been
rendered or the contract entered into.”). On its face, this limits only
the General Assembly. But the power state entities have to spend
funds appropriated to them by the General Assembly is necessarily
limited to spending those funds for the purpose the General
Assembly appropriated them. And if the General Assembly is
prohibited from appropriating funds for the purpose of granting a
gratuity, then it would seem to follow that other state entities are
12
prohibited from using appropriated funds to grant a gratuity. This
doesn’t necessarily mean that the Gratuities Clause itself directly
prohibits the executive or judicial branch from granting a gratuity,
but it does suggest that it has the same effect even if operating more
indirectly. Indeed, we have previously used a similar theory to
interpret statutes conferring taxing and spending power on counties
as not permitting counties to grant gratuities. See Atlanta Chamber
of Commerce v. McRae, 174 Ga. 590, 594 (163 SE 701) (1932)
(reading statutes conferring power on counties as not authorizing
gratuities in the light of the Gratuities Clause then in effect).8
Second, the executive branch’s power to execute the laws might
be circumscribed by limitations on the General Assembly’s
legislative power. If the constitution prohibits the General Assembly
8 The text of the Gratuities Clause has changed over time, such that the
continuing validity of decisions predating the 1983 Constitution should
carefully be considered in the light of the text in effect at the time of such
decisions. See, e.g., Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, 174 Ga. at 594 (considering
constitutional text then in effect providing that “[t]he General Assembly shall
not, by vote, resolution, or order, grant any donation or gratuity in favor of any person, corporation, or association” (quoting Ga. Const. of 1877, Art. 7, Sec. 16, Para. 1)).
13
from enacting a certain type of law, it stands to reason that an
executive officer or agency cannot execute the laws that have been
passed in a way that effectively would convert those laws into an
impermissible law.
Third, no Georgia government entity (state or local) may ever
act beyond the scope of authority granted to them. If a government
entity’s authority to act is dependent on a grant of authority in an
act of the General Assembly, then that entity’s authority is
presumptively limited by the limitations on the laws the General
Assembly may pass.
But to resolve the claims here, the trial court need exercise only
the judicial power. The courts do not receive the judicial power by
act of the General Assembly; rather, the judicial power is conferred
directly on the state’s classes of court by the Georgia Constitution.
See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. I. Thus, the scope and
nature of the judicial power is determined according to its own
original public meaning, see Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Henry
Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 315 Ga. 39, 47 (2) (a) (880 SE2d 168)
14
(2022), and not by reference to the General Assembly’s legislative
power.
15