Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
59 S. Ct. 366, 306 U.S. 118, 1939 U.S. LEXIS 973 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Economic harm resulting from lawful competition by a government entity does not, by itself, create a legally protected interest sufficient to grant a private business standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute authorizing that competition.
Facts:
- The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federally created corporation, was established to develop dams for navigation and flood control on the Tennessee River and to sell the hydroelectric power generated by these dams.
- A group of eighteen private utility companies (including Tennessee Electric Power Co.) generated, transmitted, and distributed electricity in several southeastern states.
- These private companies operated under state charters and local franchises granted by municipalities or other governmental subdivisions.
- None of the franchises held by the private companies conferred an exclusive right or monopoly to provide electricity in their service areas.
- The TVA began selling electricity at wholesale to municipalities, non-profit cooperatives, and directly to industrial plants.
- This activity by the TVA created direct competition for the private power companies, who alleged this competition would inflict substantial financial damage on their businesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Tennessee Electric Power Co. and other utility companies filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee, seeking to enjoin the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
- The TVA, as the defendant, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- A special three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- Following a trial on the merits, the District Court dismissed the utility companies' complaint.
- Fourteen of the original utility companies, as appellants, filed a direct appeal of the dismissal 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 private power companies, which do not hold exclusive franchises, have legal standing to sue to enjoin a federally-owned corporation from competing with them on the grounds that the corporation's enabling statute is unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
No. Private power companies lack legal standing because the financial harm they suffer is from lawful competition, which does not invade a legally protected right. The court held that to have standing to challenge a statute, a party must show that the government's action invades a legal right—one of property, contract, or statute—not merely that it causes economic damage. The companies' franchises were not exclusive and did not grant them a right to be free from competition from any entity, including a federal one. This type of damage is considered damnum absque injuria (damage without legal injury). The court also dismissed claims under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, finding that lawful competition does not constitute federal regulation of local matters and that the states in question had passed laws authorizing the TVA's activities.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes. The private power companies should have standing because the TVA's program is inflicting a direct, special, and irreparable injury upon their property and business. The dissent argued that the majority opinion goes too far by excluding complainants who are seeking constitutional protection from government actions allegedly designed to destroy their business. The TVA's program was not merely competition but a systematic campaign, including the use of noncompensatory 'yardstick' rates and coercion, to displace the complainants and seize their markets. When a government entity acts under a purportedly unconstitutional statute to inflict such direct and substantial harm, the injured party is entitled to have the constitutional questions decided by the courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'legal interest' test for standing, establishing that mere economic injury from government competition is insufficient to confer standing to sue. A plaintiff must demonstrate an invasion of a legally protected right, such as a monopoly granted by an exclusive franchise, rather than just harm to their bottom line. This ruling significantly insulated New Deal programs and other government enterprises from constitutional challenges brought by private competitors, raising the procedural bar for such lawsuits. It forces potential litigants to identify a specific right violated by the government's action, not just the fact of competition itself.
