Bradley v. Public Util. Comm'n of Ohio
1933 U.S. LEXIS 169, 53 S. Ct. 577, 289 U.S. 92 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, under its police power, deny a common carrier's application to operate on a specific, congested highway for the purpose of promoting public safety, even if the carrier is engaged in interstate commerce, as such a denial is not an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Facts:
- George Bradley applied for a certificate to operate a common carrier trucking company.
- His proposed route for transporting property was from Cleveland, Ohio, to Flint, Michigan, using Ohio State Route No. 20.
- The New York Central Railroad and the Pennsylvania Railroad opposed Bradley's application.
- The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio determined that State Route No. 20 was already severely congested by existing motor vehicle operations.
- The Commission found that adding Bradley's proposed service would create an excessive and undue hazard to public safety on that highway.
- Based solely on this public safety finding, the Commission denied Bradley's application.
- Bradley did not propose an alternative, less congested route or amend his application.
Procedural Posture:
- Bradley applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (a state agency) for a certificate to operate.
- The Commission denied the application.
- Bradley's petition for a rehearing before the Commission was also denied.
- Bradley, as petitioner, filed a petition in error with the Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, arguing that the denial was unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Commission's order.
- Bradley, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's denial of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an interstate motor carrier, based on the grounds of promoting public safety by preventing highway congestion, violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brandeis
No, a state's denial of a certificate to an interstate motor carrier on the grounds of promoting public safety does not violate the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that the state's primary purpose was to ensure safety, which is a legitimate exercise of its local police power. This action is distinct from prior cases like Buck v. Kuykendall, where states impermissibly denied certificates to prevent economic competition. Here, the regulation's purpose was safety, and its effect on interstate commerce was merely incidental. Since Congress has not legislated on the matter of highway congestion, the state is free to regulate for safety, just as it may require vehicle registration and driver's licenses for interstate carriers. The Court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, holding that states may rationally distinguish between common carriers and private shippers, and may also limit new carriers in favor of existing ones to prevent further congestion.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant public safety exception to the dormant Commerce Clause's limitations on state power. It distinguishes between state regulations aimed at economic protectionism, which are unconstitutional, and those aimed at exercising traditional police powers like ensuring public safety, which are permissible even if they incidentally affect interstate commerce. The case establishes that the purpose of the state regulation is the key factor in the analysis. This ruling affirmed states' authority to manage their highways to prevent hazards, setting a precedent that safety regulations will be upheld so long as they are not a pretext for discriminating against out-of-state economic interests.
