Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Last updated
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 13–14, 1947
Decided May 5, 1947
Full case nameRice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
Citations331 U.S. 218 ( more )
67 S. Ct. 1146; 91 L. Ed. 1447; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2938
Case history
PriorBd. of Trade of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 156 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1946); cert. granted, 329 U.S. 701(1946); cert. dismissed in part, 330 U.S. 810(1947).
Holding
When Congress legislates in a field which the States have traditionally occupied the Court starts with the assumption that the police powers of the States were not superseded by the federal law unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy  · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge  · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by Vinson, Black, Reed, Murphy, Jackson, Burton
DissentFrankfurter, joined by Rutledge
Laws applied
United States Warehouse Act, Illinois Public Utilities Act, Illinois Grain Warehouse Act

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947), is a case dealing with "field preemption": the United States Supreme Court held that when a federal law regulates a field traditionally occupied by the states, the police powers of the States in that area of law are not necessarily preempted; Congress must also manifest a clear and manifest purpose to do so. [1]

In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

Contents

Background information

Illinois sued several grain warehousemen for violating Illinois grain warehousing regulations. The warehouseman sued in federal court, arguing that the state regulations were preempted by a related federal law. The District Court overturned his claim, but the appellate court reversed.

The question turned on how to interpret the intention of Congress. Respondents argued that the law should be construed to mean that Illinois may not regulate subjects in any related area, even though the scope of federal regulation is not as broad as the regulatory scheme of the state and even though there is or may be no necessary conflict between what the state agency and the federal agency do. Petitioners (Illinois') argue that since the area taken over by the federal government is limited, the rest may be occupied by the States; that State regulation should not give way unless there is a precise coincidence of regulation or an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

State law

The Illinois Commerce Commission regulated grain warehouses, pursuant to the Illinois Public Utilities Act, Ill.Rev. Stats.1945, ch. 111 2/3, the Illinois Grain Warehouse Act, Ill.Rev. Stats.1945, ch. 114, §§ 189 et seq., and Art. XIII of the Illinois Constitution.

[Illinois] charged [the grain warehousemen] with discrimination in storage rates in favor of the Federal Government and its agencies and against other customers, contrary to the Public Utilities Act and the Illinois Grain Warehouse Act, Ill.Rev.Stats.1945, ch. 114, 189 et seq. It alleged that respondents were both warehousemen and dealers in grain and by reason of those dual and conflicting positions had received undue preferences and advantages to the detriment of and in discrimination against petitioners and other customers of respondents,2 all in violation of provisions of the Public Utilities Act, the Grain Warehouse Act, or the Illinois Constitution of 1870, Article XIII, Smith-Hurd Stats. It charged respondents with having failed to provide reasonable, safe, and adequate public grain warehouse service and facilities, with issuing securities, with abandoning service, and with entering into various contracts with [331 U.S. 218, 222] their affiliates without prior approval of the Commission; with rendering storage and warehousing services without having filed and published their rates; with operating without a state license; and with mixing public grain with grains of different grades-all in violation of provisions of the Public Utilities Act or the Grain Warehouse Act. [2]

Federal law

The original U.S. Warehouse Act, as enacted in 1916 (39 Stat. 486), explicitly made federal regulation in this field subservient to state regulation.

In 1931, Congress amended the act. 46 Stat. 1463.

Court's decision

Settled doctrines relied upon

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect "the common good".

  1. "The scheme of federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission , 250 U.S. 566, 569, 40 S. Ct. 36, 37; Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson , 315 U.S. 148, 786." (emphasis added)
  2. "Or the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. Hines v. Davidowitz , 312 U.S. 52." (emphasis added)
  3. "Likewise, the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it may reveal the same purpose. Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission , 236 U.S. 439; Charleston & W.C.R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co. , 237 U.S. 597, Ann.Cas.1916D, 333; New York Central R. Co. v. Winfield , 244 U.S. 147, L.R.A.1918C, 439, Ann.Cas.1917D, 1139; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra." (emphasis added)
  4. "Or the state policy may produce a result inconsistent with the objective of the federal statute. Hill v. Florida , 325 U.S. 538." (emphasis added)

Intent of Congress

In this case, the Court determined that Congress's intent, when it amended § 6 and § 29 of the Act, was to eliminate the dual state and federal regulation of any warehouse that chose to obtain a federal license:

It is often a perplexing question whether Congress has precluded state action or by the choice of selective regulatory measures has left the police power of the States undisturbed except as the state and federal regulations collide. Townsend v. Yeomans , 301 U.S. 441; Kelly v. Washington , 302 U.S. 1; South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. , 303 U.S. 177, 625; Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen , 322 U.S. 202, 152 A.L.R. 1072.

...

The amendments to § 6 and § 29, read in light of the Committee Reports, say to us in plain terms that a licensee under the Federal Act can do business "without regard to State acts"; that the matters regulated by the Federal Act cannot be regulated by the States; that, on those matters, a federal licensee (so far as his interstate or foreign commerce activities are concerned) is subject to regulation by one agency and by one agency alone. [Footnote 12] That is to say, Congress did more than make the Federal Act paramount over state law in the event of conflict. It remedied the difficulties which had been encountered in the Act's administration by terminating the dual system of regulation. [3]

Conclusion:

The test, therefore, is whether the matter on which the State assets the right to act is in any way regulated by the Federal Act. If it is, the federal scheme prevails though it is a more modest, less pervasive regulatory plan than that of the State. By that test each of the nine matters we have listed is beyond the reach of the Illinois Commission since on each one Congress has declared its policy in the Warehouse Act. The provisions of Illinois law on those subjects must therefore give way by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. U.S.Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2.

Dissent

By Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, with whom Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE concurs ...

Related Research Articles

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the United States federal agency that regulates the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce and regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects.

Communications Act of 1934 US 1934 Act of Congress

The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934 and codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

The Federal Power Act is a law appearing in Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the United States Code, entitled "Federal Regulation and Development of Power". Enacted as the Federal Water Power Act on June 10, 1920, and amended many times since, its original purpose was to more effectively coordinate the development of hydroelectric projects in the United States. Representative John J. Esch (R-Wisconsin) was the sponsor. Prior to this time and despite federal control of navigable waters and the necessary congressional approval to construct such facilities, Congress had left the regulation of hydroelectric power to the individual states. The first federal legislation broadly dealing with hydroelectric development regarded its competition with navigation usage; with the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Congress made it illegal to dam navigable streams without a license from them. Until 1903, these congressional permits were given away on a 'first come first served' perpetual basis and controlled by the individual states. This would lead to a long debate between competing private and public development interests, and culminate in the act's passage in 1920.

The Granger Laws were a series of laws passed in several midwestern states of the United States, namely Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, in the late 1860s and early 1870s. The Granger Laws were promoted primarily by a group of farmers known as The National Granger of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. The main goal of the Granger was to regulate rising fare prices of railroad and grain elevator companies after the American Civil War. The laws, which upset major railroad companies, were a topic of much debate at the time and ended up leading to several important court cases, such as Munn v. Illinois and Wabash v. Illinois.

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum fat content standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the sale of avocados that did not contain at least 8% oil by weight. Florida, a major avocado producer, employed, for wholesale marketing purposes, a federal standard unrelated to oil content. Most Florida avocados that were marketable at home failed to meet the California standard, because they were a different variety from those sold in California, with a lower fat content. Accordingly, Florida avocado growers brought this suit, arguing (unsuccessfully) that the California law (1) was preempted by federal law, (2) violated equal protection, and (3) unduly burdened and interfered with their right to engage in interstate commerce. The case is widely used in law school casebooks on constitutional law and federal jurisdiction as illustrative of preemption issues.

Interstate Commerce Act of 1887

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 is a United States federal law that was designed to regulate the railroad industry, particularly its monopolistic practices. The Act required that railroad rates be "reasonable and just," but did not empower the government to fix specific rates. It also required that railroads publicize shipping rates and prohibited short haul or long haul fare discrimination, a form of price discrimination against smaller markets, particularly farmers in Western or Southern Territory compared to the Official Eastern states. The Act created a federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which it charged with monitoring railroads to ensure that they complied with the new regulations.

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.

In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute regulating economic aspects of nuclear generating plants was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The case provides a framework that has guided other cases involving preemption of federal authority.

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941), is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system because it was an "obstacle to the accomplishment" of its goals.

English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court held, in a 9-0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.

To determine whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts a state law, courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co..

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88 (1992), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. The Court determined that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations preempted various Illinois provisions for licensing workers who handled hazardous waste materials.

Insurance regulatory law is the body of statutory law, administrative regulations and jurisprudence that governs and regulates the insurance industry and those engaged in the business of insurance. Insurance regulatory law is primarily enforced through regulations, rules and directives by state insurance departments as authorized and directed by statutory law enacted by the state legislatures. However, federal law, court decisions and administrative adjudications also play an important role.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.

Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Rel. Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc., 507 U.S. 218 (1993), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

References

  1. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 331 U.S. at 221.
  3. 331 U.S. at 234.
<i>United States Reports</i> United States Supreme Court decisions

The United States Reports are the official record of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.

International Standard Book Number Unique numeric book identifier

The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is a numeric commercial book identifier which is intended to be unique. Publishers purchase ISBNs from an affiliate of the International ISBN Agency.