Southern Railway Co. v. King
1910 U.S. LEXIS 1980, 30 S. Ct. 594, 217 US 524 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to invalidate a state statute as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce must plead specific facts demonstrating that burden; mere conclusory allegations that the law impedes commerce are insufficient to raise the constitutional issue.
Facts:
- Southern Railway Company operated an interstate train line that passed through Habersham County, Georgia.
- A Georgia statute required all trains to check their speed at public road crossings to be able to stop in time if the crossing was obstructed.
- Josephine King's husband was riding in a buggy at a public road crossing on the Southern Railway Company's line.
- The company's interstate train struck the buggy at the crossing, killing King's husband and injuring his daughter, Inez King.
- The Kings alleged the railway company was negligent for violating the Georgia speed-checking statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Josephine King and Inez King filed separate lawsuits against the Southern Railway Company in the Superior Court of Habersham County, Georgia (a state trial court).
- Southern Railway Company removed both cases to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the federal court of first instance).
- The railroad filed an amended answer claiming the Georgia statute at issue violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- The plaintiffs demurred to the amended answer, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, striking the constitutional defense.
- At trial, the court excluded the railroad's proffered testimony intended to support its constitutional claim.
- A jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs, and the trial court entered judgments against the Southern Railway Company.
- Southern Railway Company, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Southern Railway Company's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 defendant's amended answer, which alleges that a state safety statute is a direct burden on interstate commerce without setting forth any specific facts to support that conclusion, sufficiently raise a federal constitutional defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
No. A defendant's pleading is insufficient if it contains only mere conclusions that a state law violates the Commerce Clause. While states may not directly regulate interstate commerce, they retain police power to enact reasonable safety regulations, such as those governing how trains approach dangerous crossings. A statute that appears reasonable on its face could be unconstitutional in its application if, for example, it requires an interstate train to slow at so many crossings that it becomes a direct burden on commerce. However, the burden is on the challenger to demonstrate this unconstitutionality. To do so, the party must plead specific facts—such as the number, location, and character of the crossings—that would show the statute is unreasonable as applied to them. The Southern Railway Company's answer simply stated the conclusion that the law was a burden and that it was 'impossible' to comply, without any factual averments. Because the answer failed to allege facts making the statute's operation unconstitutional, the demurrer was properly sustained, and the subsequent offer of proof was correctly excluded.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes. The defendant's pleading was sufficient to raise the constitutional defense. The allegation that it is 'impossible' for the railroad to conduct its interstate business while complying with the statute is a conclusion of fact, not merely a conclusion of law. This factual allegation puts the statute's constitutionality at issue by implicitly referencing the physical conditions—namely, the number of crossings—that make compliance impracticable. If the court found the pleading lacked sufficient detail, the proper remedy was to require the defendant to provide more particulars, not to strike the entire defense. By refusing to hear the evidence the railroad offered to prove its factual claim, the court risks upholding a judgment based on a statute that is likely unconstitutional, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical procedural rule regarding constitutional litigation: a party cannot challenge a statute's constitutionality with boilerplate or conclusory allegations. By requiring specific factual pleadings for an 'as-applied' challenge under the Commerce Clause, the Court placed a significant gatekeeping burden on defendants. This precedent ensures that courts are not required to adjudicate complex constitutional questions unless the challenger can first make a plausible, fact-based showing of actual harm. It reinforces the principle that statutes are presumed constitutional and forces litigants to substantiate their constitutional claims at the earliest stage of litigation.
