Southern Railway Co. v. United States
32 S. Ct. 2, 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1875, 222 U.S. 20 (1911)
Rule of Law:
The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate the equipment of vehicles used exclusively in intrastate commerce when those vehicles operate on a railway line that is a highway for interstate commerce. This power is justified because the safety of all vehicles on such a line has a substantial and direct connection to the safety of interstate commerce.
Facts:
- Southern Railway Company operated a railroad line that served as a 'through highway' for commerce moving between states.
- During February 1907, Southern Railway hauled five cars that had defective and inoperative couplers.
- Two of the five cars with defective couplers were being used at the time to move interstate traffic.
- The other three cars with defective couplers were being used to move purely intrastate traffic.
- The three cars moving intrastate traffic were not, at that moment, connected to any cars moving interstate traffic.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government filed a civil action against Southern Railway Co. in the U.S. District Court to recover penalties for violations of the Safety Appliance Acts.
- The District Court found for the United States, assessing penalties for all five defective cars, including those used in intrastate commerce.
- Southern Railway Co., the defendant, appealed the judgment via a direct writ of error 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:
Do the Safety Appliance Acts, as applied to vehicles used exclusively in intrastate commerce on a railroad that is a highway for interstate commerce, exceed the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
No. The Safety Appliance Acts are a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. First, the court interpreted the 1903 amendment to the Acts, specifically the phrase 'on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce,' to mean that the safety requirements apply to all vehicles used on such a railroad, regardless of whether a particular vehicle is moving interstate or intrastate traffic at a given moment. Second, the court held this application to be within Congress's constitutional power because there is a 'real or substantial relation' between the safety of intrastate vehicles and the safety of interstate commerce. The court reasoned that both classes of traffic are commingled on the same tracks, handled by the same employees, and are interdependent; thus, a defect on an intrastate car is a menace to interstate trains. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is plenary and can be used to eliminate dangers to it, no matter the source of those dangers.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause by establishing that Congress could regulate purely intrastate activities that have a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce. It marked a shift away from a rigid test based on whether an object was literally 'in the stream of commerce' toward a more practical test based on the actual effect of an activity on interstate commerce. This 'substantial effects' doctrine laid the groundwork for future expansions of federal regulatory power, particularly during the New Deal era, by allowing Congress to regulate local matters to protect the safety and efficiency of national commercial networks.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Southern Railway Co. v. United States (1911)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"