Southern Pac. Co. v. State of Arizona ex rel. Sullivan
325 U.S. 761, 65 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed. 1915 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the absence of conflicting federal legislation, a state law that regulates a subject matter requiring national uniformity violates the Commerce Clause if its burden on interstate commerce outweighs its purported local benefits.
Facts:
- In 1912, Arizona enacted the Train Limit Law, making it unlawful to operate passenger trains of more than fourteen cars or freight trains of more than seventy cars within the state.
- Southern Pacific Company, along with other national railroads, customarily operated trains far in excess of Arizona's limits as a standard and efficient industry practice.
- Approximately 93% of freight traffic and 95% of passenger traffic on Southern Pacific's Arizona lines was interstate in nature.
- To comply with the law, Southern Pacific had to break down its longer, standard-length trains at the Arizona border and reassemble them into shorter trains for passage through the state.
- This process caused significant operational delays, required the company to run over 30% more trains in Arizona, and increased annual operating costs by approximately $1,000,000 for railroads in the state.
- The state asserted the law was a safety measure designed to reduce risks associated with 'slack action' on longer trains.
- Evidence suggested that limiting train length increased the total number of trains, which in turn increased the frequency of more dangerous accidents, such as grade crossing collisions and head-on or rear-end collisions.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Arizona sued the Southern Pacific Company in the Arizona Superior Court (a state trial court) to recover penalties for violating the state's Train Limit Law.
- Following a bench trial, the Superior Court made detailed findings of fact and entered a judgment in favor of the Southern Pacific Company.
- The State of Arizona, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Arizona, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed the trial court's decision and directed that judgment be entered for the State.
- Southern Pacific Company, as appellant, then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal.
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 Arizona Train Limit Law, which prohibits the operation of trains with more than fourteen passenger or seventy freight cars, impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Stone
Yes, the Arizona Train Limit Law imposes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. When a state regulation, adopted for a local purpose like safety, imposes a serious burden on interstate commerce, the court must balance the state and national interests. Here, the law substantially obstructs the free flow of commerce by imposing significant costs and delays, and it governs a subject—interstate train operations—that requires national uniformity for efficiency. The purported safety benefits of the law are 'slight or dubious,' especially since the increase in the number of trains likely increases the overall danger of more severe accidents. Therefore, the national interest in an adequate, economical, and efficient railway transportation service outweighs the state's interest, rendering the law unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No, the law does not violate the Commerce Clause. The Court is improperly acting as a 'super-legislature' by substituting its own judgment for that of the Arizona legislature on a matter of public policy and safety. The determination of whether the dangers of 'slack action' on long trains outweigh the dangers of increased grade-crossing accidents from more short trains is a legislative, not a judicial, question. The 'burden' on commerce is primarily a financial one, and the increased cost of operations should not justify invalidating a state law enacted to protect the lives and limbs of railroad employees. Congress has the authority to create a uniform rule but has not done so, which implies that states should remain free to legislate in this area of safety.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
No, the law should be upheld. The courts should only intervene and strike down state legislation under the Commerce Clause when it discriminates against interstate commerce or conflicts with enacted federal laws. This law does neither. The issue involves a complex appraisal of facts regarding safety and efficiency, which is a task best suited for an expert administrative body like the Interstate Commerce Commission or for a legislature. The railroad failed to overcome the strong presumption of validity that should be afforded to a state law enacted to protect the safety of its people.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, establishing a balancing test for non-discriminatory state regulations. It clarifies that even a law enacted under a state's traditional police powers, such as safety, can be unconstitutional if its burden on interstate commerce is excessive relative to its local benefits. The decision emphasizes the judiciary's role in protecting national economic unity by striking down state laws that interfere with subjects requiring a single, uniform system of regulation, like the national rail network. This balancing approach has become central to analyzing state laws that affect interstate commerce without discriminating against it.
Unlock the full brief for Southern Pac. Co. v. State of Arizona ex rel. Sullivan