Lexplug logoLexplug

Market Street Railway v. Railroad Commission

Supreme Court of United States
324 U.S. 548 (1945)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a regulatory commission to fix rates for a public utility based on historical cost, reproduction cost, or prudent investment if economic forces have rendered the business unprofitable and destroyed the value of the original investment. A rate is not unconstitutionally confiscatory if it provides a fair return on the present fair value of the property, which may be its salvage or sale value.


Facts:

  • Market Street Railway Company operated a streetcar and bus system in San Francisco, which had been in financial decline for years.
  • The company faced significant competition from a municipally-owned railway that charged a lower fare of five cents.
  • After being granted several fare increases by the Railroad Commission of California, culminating in a seven-cent fare, the company's revenues continued to fall and its service and equipment deteriorated.
  • During World War II, the company experienced a temporary increase in revenue due to wartime conditions.
  • The Railroad Commission of California initiated an inquiry into the company's rates and service, noting the service was poor despite the higher fare.
  • During this period, the Market Street Railway Company had offered to sell its operative properties to the City of San Francisco for $7,950,000.
  • The Commission ordered the company to reduce its fare from seven cents to six cents.
  • The company subsequently sold its properties to the City of San Francisco for $7,500,000.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Railroad Commission of California instituted an inquiry into the rates and service of the Market Street Railway Company.
  • Following hearings, the Commission issued an order reducing the company's fare from seven to six cents.
  • The Commission denied the company's petition for a rehearing.
  • Market Street Railway Company (petitioner) sought review in the Supreme Court of California, which affirmed the Commission's order.
  • The company then appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of California to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

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 commission's rate-setting order, which reduces a financially distressed public utility's fare, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the rate is calculated to provide a return on a rate base equivalent to the company's own offer to sell its property?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson

No, the commission's rate-setting order does not violate the Due Process Clause. The Constitution does not require regulators to set rates that ensure a return on a utility's original investment or theoretical reproduction cost when economic forces have already destroyed that value. For a financially failing utility whose assets have little value beyond salvage or a potential sale price, a rate providing a return on that present value is not confiscatory. The court found that the company's own offer to sell its properties for $7,950,000 was a reasonable measure of their present fair value, and it was not a constitutional error for the Commission to use this figure as the rate base. The principles from cases like Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., which concern financially viable enterprises, are inapplicable to a company whose financial integrity is already hopelessly undermined and cannot attract capital at any rate. The Due Process Clause prevents the governmental destruction of existing economic values but does not insure values that have been lost by the operation of economic forces.



Analysis:

This decision significantly adapts the constitutional framework for rate-making to the economic realities of declining industries. It clarifies that the "end result" test from Hope Natural Gas is flexible and does not obligate regulators to use valuation methods like historical or reproduction cost for a utility that is economically obsolete. The case establishes that for a failing business, the Constitution permits rates to be based on the property's present fair value, even if that is only its salvage or sale price. This pragmatic approach prevents a utility from claiming a constitutional right to a return on an investment that has already vanished due to competition and technological change, thereby protecting consumers from shouldering the costs of a defunct enterprise.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Market Street Railway v. Railroad Commission (1945)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"