Southern Railway Co. v. Virginia
54 S. Ct. 148, 290 U.S. 190, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 455 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law empowering an administrative officer to require an expenditure of private funds, which constitutes a taking of property, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it fails to provide for notice and a fair hearing on the fundamental facts underlying the officer's decision.
Facts:
- A Virginia statute authorized the State Highway Commissioner to order the elimination of railroad grade crossings when, in his opinion, it was necessary for public safety and convenience.
- The Highway Commissioner, acting under this statute, formed the opinion that a grade crossing of the Southern Railway Company near Antlers, Virginia, needed to be eliminated.
- Without providing prior notice or a hearing to the railway company, the Commissioner informed Southern Railway Company of his opinion.
- The Commissioner directed Southern Railway Company to abolish the grade crossing and construct an overhead passage according to plans and specifications he provided.
- Southern Railway Company disputed the Commissioner's factual conclusion that the project was necessary for public safety and convenience and refused to undertake the work.
Procedural Posture:
- The Highway Commissioner petitioned the Virginia State Corporation Commission for an order compelling Southern Railway Company to construct the overhead pass.
- Southern Railway Company demurred, challenging the constitutionality of the authorizing statute.
- The State Corporation Commission overruled the demurrer and issued an order directing the railway to proceed with construction.
- Southern Railway Company (appellant) appealed the Commission's order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (appellee).
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, the state's highest court, affirmed the Commission's order.
- Southern Railway Company (appellant) appealed the decision of the Virginia high court 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 statute that authorizes an administrative officer to command a railroad company to eliminate a grade crossing and construct an overhead pass at its expense, based solely on the officer's ex parte opinion of public necessity and without providing for a hearing or meaningful judicial review of that determination, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McReynolds
Yes. The state statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it empowers an administrative officer to take property without a fair hearing. Requiring the railway to expend funds to construct an overhead pass is a taking of property. The Due Process Clause requires that such a taking be preceded by a fair hearing on the fundamental facts, specifically, whether the elimination is actually necessary for public safety and convenience. The Virginia statute fails this standard because it allows the Commissioner to make a final determination on necessity based on his own ex parte opinion, without notice, hearing, or evidence. The limited statutory review of the proposed plans by the Corporation Commission is insufficient, and the indefinite right to seek relief in equity against 'arbitrary' action is not an adequate substitute for a proper hearing, as there would be no record or evidence upon which a court could evaluate the basis for the Commissioner's decision.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Cardozo
No. The state statute does not violate the Due Process Clause. The state legislature has the power to declare the need to eliminate dangerous grade crossings, which are a public nuisance, and may lawfully delegate this power to an administrative officer. This power may be exercised without a prior notice or hearing, provided that an adequate opportunity for judicial review is available in the event the power is abused. The statutes of Virginia, as construed by its highest court to permit review in a court of equity for arbitrary action, provide such an adequate opportunity.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in American administrative law, establishing that the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause apply to the actions of administrative officers, not just courts or legislatures. It affirms the principle that when an administrative agency's action results in the deprivation of property, the affected party is entitled to a hearing on the adjudicative facts underlying that action. The decision limits the ability of legislatures to delegate unchecked, final decision-making authority to executive officers, thereby reinforcing the role of judicial review in overseeing administrative actions and protecting individual property rights from potentially arbitrary government power.
