Smyth v. Ames
169 U.S. 466 (1898)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that sets rates for a public utility, such as a railroad, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment if the rates are so low that they deprive the company of a fair return on the fair value of the property it employs for the public convenience.
Facts:
- In 1893, the Nebraska legislature enacted a law, known as House Roll 33, which established maximum rates for freight transported by railroads entirely within the state.
- The statute mandated a general reduction in freight rates, calculated to be an average of 29.5% below the rates the railroads were currently charging.
- Several railroad companies, including the Union Pacific Railway Company and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, operated lines within Nebraska and were subject to the new rate schedule.
- The companies determined that the statutorily mandated rates were so low they would not generate enough revenue to cover their operating expenses for their Nebraska business, let alone provide a profit on their investment.
- The act imposed severe penalties for any violation of the new rates, with fines ranging from $1,000 for a first offense to $25,000 for subsequent offenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Stockholders of several major railroad companies (Ames, et al.) sued officials of the Nebraska Board of Transportation (Smyth, et al.) in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the enforcement of a 1893 Nebraska statute that set maximum freight rates, claiming the act was unconstitutional.
- The Circuit Court found the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the prescribed rates were unreasonably low and would deprive the companies of just compensation.
- The Circuit Court granted a perpetual injunction against the state officials, barring them from enforcing the statute.
- The Nebraska state officials, as defendants-appellants, appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 that fixes maximum rates for freight transportation violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses if the rates are so low that they prevent railroad companies from earning just compensation for their services?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
Yes. A state law regulating railroad rates violates the Fourteenth Amendment if it is so unreasonable as to deprive the carrier of the just compensation secured by the Constitution. While a state has the power to regulate rates, that power is not unlimited and cannot be used to require a corporation to use its property for the public benefit without a fair return. The reasonableness of such rates is a judicial question, and a legislature cannot be the final arbiter of its own act's constitutionality. The court rejected the argument that a railroad's overall profitability, including interstate commerce, could justify confiscatory intrastate rates; the reasonableness of rates for domestic transportation must be determined exclusively by considering the intrastate business. To determine if rates are reasonable, a court must ascertain the 'fair value' of the property being used for the public's convenience. Based on evidence showing that the Nebraska law would force most of the railroads to operate their local business at a loss, the statute deprives them of property without due process of law and is therefore unconstitutional.
Analysis:
Smyth v. Ames established the landmark 'fair value' rule for public utility rate regulation, which dominated American constitutional law for four decades. This decision solidified the judiciary's power to review the substance of economic legislation, making courts the ultimate authority on whether rates were 'reasonable' or 'confiscatory.' The multi-factor, and often indeterminate, 'fair value' test led to decades of complex and costly litigation between utilities and regulators. The doctrine was ultimately abandoned in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co. (1944), which shifted the focus from property valuation to whether the 'end result' of the rate was just and reasonable.
