Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
331 U.S. 218 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause, the United States Warehouse Act, as amended in 1931, grants the Secretary of Agriculture exclusive jurisdiction that preempts any state regulation of federally licensed warehouses on matters which the Federal Act in any way regulates, even if the state regulation does not directly conflict with the federal scheme.
Facts:
- Respondents operate public grain warehouses in Illinois under licenses issued by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the United States Warehouse Act.
- Rice, a grain dealer and customer of the respondents, alleged that the warehousemen engaged in numerous improper and illegal practices.
- The alleged practices included maintaining unjust and discriminatory rates, particularly favoring the Federal Government over other customers.
- Respondents were also accused of operating in the dual and conflicting capacity of both public warehousemen and private grain dealers.
- Further allegations included mixing high-quality public grain with their own inferior grain, providing inadequate and unsafe facilities, and operating without a state license.
- Rice claimed these actions violated several Illinois laws, including the Illinois Public Utilities Act and the Grain Warehouse Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Rice filed a complaint against the respondent warehousemen with the Illinois Commerce Commission.
- Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that their federal licenses under the United States Warehouse Act preempted the Commission's authority.
- The Illinois Commerce Commission denied the motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing on the merits of the complaint.
- Respondents then filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin the Illinois Commerce Commission from proceeding.
- The District Court granted the petitioners' (Rice and the Commission) motion to dismiss the suits for an injunction.
- Respondents, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the federal Act had superseded state regulatory authority.
- The Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari filed by Rice and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
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 the United States Warehouse Act, as amended to grant the Secretary of Agriculture 'exclusive' power, jurisdiction, and authority, preempt the Illinois Commerce Commission from regulating federally licensed grain warehouses in areas covered by the federal Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The United States Warehouse Act preempts state regulation in any field it touches. The 1931 amendment to Section 29 of the Act explicitly states that the 'power, jurisdiction, and authority' of the Secretary of Agriculture 'shall be exclusive' for all licensed warehousemen. This language, combined with the removal of a requirement for licensees to post a bond for compliance with state laws, demonstrates a clear congressional intent to make the federal act independent of state laws and to terminate the dual system of regulation. The legislative history confirms that Congress sought to create a uniform system where a federal licensee is responsible to one agency alone. Therefore, if the federal act regulates a matter in any way, state law on that same matter is superseded, even if the state's regulatory scheme is more extensive or does not directly conflict with the federal rules. However, in areas where the federal act is silent, such as the approval of securities issuance or contracts with affiliates, state regulation is not preempted.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The Court's interpretation of 'exclusive' authority is overly broad and improperly displaces a vast body of state law without a clear congressional mandate or an actual conflict. The 1931 amendment should be read to prevent conflict with federal authority, not to eliminate all non-conflicting state regulation. Congress did not establish a comprehensive federal regulatory system; it created a voluntary licensing scheme. The dissent argues it is more reasonable to assume Congress intended to allow federal authorities to cooperate with and benefit from established state regulatory machinery, like rate-fixing agencies, rather than to create a regulatory vacuum. The Court's decision displaces settled state authority in areas of intimate state concern without replacing it with equivalent federal authority, which is contrary to the principles of federalism.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision on the doctrine of field preemption. It establishes that when Congress uses explicit language like 'exclusive jurisdiction' in a statute, it signals an intent to occupy the entire regulatory field, thereby displacing all state law in that area. The ruling significantly strengthened federal power, clarifying that preemption can occur even without a direct conflict between state and federal laws. The decision forces lower courts to analyze not whether state law conflicts with federal law, but simply whether the federal statute touches upon the subject matter at all, setting a high bar for the survival of state regulations in such fields.
Unlock the full brief for Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.