Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon
32 S. Ct. 224, 223 U.S. 118, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2220 (1912)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim that a state's form of government violates the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution presents a non-justiciable political question, the resolution of which is exclusively committed to Congress.
Facts:
- In 1902, the State of Oregon amended its constitution to establish the initiative and referendum, which reserved power for the people to propose and enact laws directly, independent of the state legislature.
- In 1906, through this initiative process, Oregon voters enacted a law imposing a two percent annual tax on the gross revenues of certain corporations, including telephone and telegraph companies.
- The Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company (PSTTC), an Oregon corporation subject to the law, was assessed this tax based on its reported revenues.
- PSTTC refused to pay the tax, asserting that the law creating it was invalid.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oregon filed suit in an Oregon state trial court against Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to enforce payment of a tax.
- The company's defense was that the tax law, enacted via initiative, was void because Oregon's system of direct legislation violated the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- The trial court sustained the state's demurrer, finding the company's defense legally insufficient.
- When the company elected not to plead further, the trial court entered a judgment against it.
- The company, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The company, as plaintiff in error, then successfully sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision.
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 claim that a state's adoption of the initiative and referendum violates the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government present a justiciable question for the federal courts to decide?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice White
No. A claim that a state's government has ceased to be republican in form due to the adoption of initiative and referendum is a political question committed to Congress, not a justiciable issue for the courts. The company's challenge is not to the specifics of the tax, but to the legitimacy of the entire political framework of the State of Oregon. Citing the controlling precedent of Luther v. Borden, the Court held that the determination of whether a state government is republican in form is a power exclusively vested in the legislative branch. When Congress admits a state's senators and representatives, it inherently recognizes the republican character of that state's government, and this decision is binding on the judiciary. For the Court to intervene would be to usurp a power reserved for Congress and would lead to chaos, potentially invalidating every law passed under the challenged governmental structure.
Analysis:
This decision firmly entrenches the political question doctrine as a barrier to judicial review of claims brought under the Guarantee Clause. It establishes that challenges to the fundamental structure of a state's government—such as the adoption of direct democracy mechanisms—are non-justiciable. The ruling ensures that such foundational political disputes are resolved by the political branches (specifically Congress), rather than by judicial decree, thereby reinforcing the separation of powers and preventing the courts from becoming arbiters of what constitutes a 'republican' government.
