Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co. v. Mississippi
10 S. Ct. 348, 133 U.S. 587, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1935 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law requiring railroads to provide equal but separate accommodations for different races on trains operating exclusively within that state is a regulation of intrastate commerce and does not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- In 1888, the Mississippi legislature enacted a statute requiring all railroads carrying passengers within the state to provide 'equal, but separate, accommodation for the white and colored races.'
- The statute mandated that railroads accomplish this by providing two or more passenger cars for each train or by dividing a single passenger car with a partition.
- The law also required train conductors to assign each passenger to the car or compartment designated for their race.
- The Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railway Company operated passenger trains that traveled within the state of Mississippi.
- The company was indicted for failing to provide the required separate accommodations for passengers of different races.
Procedural Posture:
- The Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railway Company was indicted in a Mississippi trial court for violating a state statute requiring separate passenger cars for white and colored races.
- The Railway Company was convicted at the trial court level.
- The company appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which acted as the state's highest appellate court.
- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- The Railway Company (plaintiff in error) brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error to review the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
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 law requiring railroads to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and colored passengers on trains operating within the state's borders violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brewer
No. A state law requiring separate accommodations for different races on railroad lines within its borders does not violate the Commerce Clause so long as it applies only to intrastate commerce. The Court accepted the Mississippi Supreme Court's construction of the statute, which held that it applied solely to commerce within the state. As such, it is not a regulation of interstate commerce and does not interfere with the power given to Congress by the Commerce Clause. The Court distinguished this case from Hall v. DeCuir, where a Louisiana law was held invalid because it was applied to an interstate carrier and directly burdened interstate commerce. Here, the regulation is a matter of local concern, similar to state laws requiring depots or compelling trains to stop at crossings, and is within the state's police power.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
Yes. The Mississippi statute is an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce. The dissent argues that the practical effect of the law is to directly burden interstate commerce, making it indistinguishable from the law struck down in Hall v. DeCuir. While the Louisiana law in Hall forbade racial separation and the Mississippi law requires it, both impose regulations on carriers engaged in interstate travel. An interstate train traveling from Memphis to New Orleans is forced to alter its passenger arrangement upon entering Mississippi, creating the very lack of uniformity and potential for conflicting state laws that the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent. A state cannot avoid this constitutional limitation simply by claiming the law only applies 'within the state.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforced the power of states to enact segregationist laws under their police powers by narrowly defining what constitutes a regulation of interstate commerce. By deferring to the state supreme court's interpretation that the law was purely intrastate, the Supreme Court permitted a regulation that directly impacted interstate rail carriers. This case preceded Plessy v. Ferguson by six years and helped lay the legal groundwork for the 'separate but equal' doctrine, confining federal oversight under the Commerce Clause and allowing states significant leeway to enforce racial segregation in public transportation.
