New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Supreme Court of United States
285 U.S. 262 (1932)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state legislature cannot declare an ordinary private business to be a public utility and require a certificate of public necessity as a prerequisite to entry, as such a regulation unreasonably curtails the common right to engage in a lawful occupation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Facts:

In 1925, the Oklahoma legislature passed an act declaring that the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ice is a public business.
The act required any person or company to obtain a license from the Corporation Commission before engaging in the ice business.
The Commission was prohibited from issuing a license unless the applicant demonstrated a 'necessity' for the ice supply at the desired location.
The act authorized the Commission to deny an application if existing licensed facilities were already sufficient to meet the public needs.
New State Ice Company was a licensed corporation engaged in the ice business in Oklahoma City.
Ernest A. Liebmann, without obtaining a license, began constructing a factory to manufacture, sell, and distribute ice in Oklahoma City, in competition with New State Ice Company.

Procedural Posture:

New State Ice Company filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to enjoin Ernest A. Liebmann from operating an ice business without a license.
The federal district court, a trial court, dismissed the complaint, ruling that the Oklahoma statute was an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property.
New State Ice Company, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the district court's judgment.
New State Ice Company, as appellant, appealed the Tenth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Liebmann as the appellee.

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 an Oklahoma statute that requires a person to obtain a certificate of public necessity and convenience before engaging in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing ice violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Sutherland

Yes. The Oklahoma statute's requirement of a certificate of public necessity to enter the ice business is an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with a lawful private business, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The business of manufacturing and selling ice is an ordinary business, not one 'charged with a public use' that would justify such a restriction on competition. While states can regulate businesses for public health and safety, they cannot curtail the common right to engage in a lawful private business by creating a state-sanctioned monopoly. The court distinguished the ice business from businesses historically considered public utilities, such as grist mills, or paramount state industries, like cotton ginning, which might warrant greater regulation. The law's effect is not to protect the public but to foster monopoly by preventing new entrants, which runs contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, with the advent of household refrigeration, the public is not dependent on ice manufacturers in a way that would justify declaring the business a public utility.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brandeis

No. The Oklahoma statute is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power to address local economic conditions and does not violate the Due Process Clause. The court should defer to the Oklahoma legislature's finding that the ice business is a public utility, as the legislature is most familiar with local conditions. The concept of a 'public utility' is not static and can evolve; in Oklahoma's climate, ice is a necessity of life. The requirement of a certificate of public necessity is a legitimate legislative tool to prevent the economic waste and poor service that can result from destructive competition. There was evidence that before the act, the ice industry in Oklahoma was plagued by monopolies and inadequate service. States should be permitted to serve as 'laboratories' for social and economic experiments to address pressing problems like those of the Great Depression, and the judiciary should not strike down such experiments unless they are clearly arbitrary or unreasonable.

Analysis:

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann is a landmark case from the Lochner era, representing a high point of substantive due process protection for economic liberties. The decision narrowly defined the category of businesses 'affected with a public interest,' limiting the state's power to impose anti-competitive regulations like certificates of necessity on ordinary industries. This ruling significantly constrained state economic experimentation until the Supreme Court's shift in jurisprudence during the late 1930s. Justice Brandeis's famous dissent, with its 'laboratory of democracy' metaphor, became profoundly influential, articulating a philosophy of judicial restraint and federalism that would later become the majority view, granting legislatures broad deference in regulating the economy.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932)

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

Premium Feature