*1 ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Argued February 27-28, May No. 395. 1951. Decided Nachman, Roland Court, Merton special leave By vice, hac Alabama, pro Jr., Attorney General Assistant *2 appellants. for argued the cause and Richard T. Rives Garrett, Attorney General. Si on the brief was With them L. General, and Wallace Carmichael, Attorney A. A. then also on General, were Johnson, Attorney Assistant then brief with Rives. Mr. him appellee. for With the cause argued
Charles Clark Jr., Eisenhart, Rushton, Earl E. Marion brief were on the F. Johnston. Sidney Alderman and Jos. opinion of delivered the Vinson
Mr. Chief Justice the Court. brought this Company, appellee, Railway
The Southern mem- enjoin the Federal District Court action the the Commission bers of the Alabama Public Service enforcing appellants, Attorney Alabama, General of of certain prohibiting Alabama discontinuance laws of intra- Appellee’s Alabama passenger railroad service. prohibiting aban- governed by service is a statute state public . “any portion of to the . . donment of its service appli- filed an and until shall first have been unless there and obtained from permit cation for a to abandon service permit allowing such abandonment.” the commission a pre- penalties are Code, 1940, Ala. tit. 106.1 Severe i regulatory for wilful violation of statutes or orders scribed employees. Id. by the Commission utilities or their 399, 400, 405. §§
Appellee operates throughout a railroad system the South. This case, however, involves that Alabama
1Upon filing application discontinue, permission of an provides officials, municipal publication the statute notification by change service, hearing of notice in the area affected and a Code, 1940, 107. “The com Commission. Ala. tit. § may grant mission, public, as it deems to the best interest of the part whole, may applications, . .” Id. 108. or in refuse such . . Nos. 7 by trains furnished passenger service intrastate Alabama, Tuscumbia, daily between operated and 8 approximately distance of Tennessee, Chattanooga, September 13, On Alabama. mainly miles within Com- Public Service Alabama appellee applied to the 7 and trains Nos. to discontinue permission mission for declined had so use of service public 8, alleging that operat- direct meeting fell far short revenues Ala- Huntsville, at expenses. hearing After evidence ing trains, served bama, one of the communities denying April 3, 1950, entered an order on Commission there exists permission grounds on to discontinue had not appellee for the service and that public need adoption of more through attempted to reduce losses *3 operating economical methods. appeal to the state right of pursuing
Instead of in the United States appellee complaint filed a courts,2 and that citizenship of alleging diversity District Court 7 and 8 at of trains Nos. operation continued requiring of its to a confiscation out-of-pocket an loss amounted Due Process Clause of the violation of the property in Injunctive prayed relief was Amendment. Fourteenth one loss, flowing on the protect appellee irreparable from complying with Alabama operating hand from losses penalties for discontinu- or, other, law on the from severe A three-judge law. service in the face of that ance of evidence, findings heard made its own of fact court3 holding Commission order void judgment entered appellants any steps permanently enjoining taking penalty to enforce either the Commission order or the 2 seq. Code, 79 et Ala. tit. §§ (Supp. III) of §2281, a district court Under 28 U. S. C. restraining “any judges may injunction of three issue an enforcement restraining any by of officer of such State State statute action or of order made in the or execution of such statute enforcement acting under State stat- an administrative board or commission provisions to the dis- of the Alabama Code relation Supp. continuance of trains Nos. 7 and 8.4 91 F. C. (1950). properly appeal, The case is here on 28 U. S. (Supp. Ill) grounded upon
Federal in this case is di- versity of citizenship allegation as well as the question. Exercise does involve construction a state statute so ill-defined that a federal pending court should hold the case a definitive g., of that courts, statute the state e. construction Railroad Commission Texas v. Pullman S. 312 U. 496 (1941); Shipman DuPre, (1950). v. S. 321 put We also to one side those cases in which the con- stitutionality of a state statute itself is drawn into ques- g., Witsell, e. tion, Toomer (1948). U. S. 385 For appellee in this case attacks state administrative order issued under valid regulatory designed statute to assure provision of adequate intrastate service utilities operating within Alabama.5
Appellee takes
position, adopted
by the court below,
plaintiff
whenever
can show irreparable loss caused
utes . . . .” The word
comprehends
legislative
“statute”
all state
enactments, including
expressed through
those
administrative orders.
Watson,
American Federation
Labor v.
591-593
Russell,
(1946);
Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v.
261 U.
4Appellants contend for the first time in this Court that a suit
*4
enforcing
restrain state officials from
state
unconstitutional
laws
is,
effect,
against
prohibited by
in
a suit
the state
the Eleventh
many
Amendment. The
in
contention is not tenable
view of the
prior
following
parte Young,
(1908),
cases
to and
Ex
of the regulatory priate. over the same an interstate business
Appellee conducts
involved
trains
same
tracks
means
regulated
activities are
case, and
interstate
this
such
Commission, 49
by the Federal
Interstate Commerce
held that this
long
been
seq. But,
C.
it has
§§
et
operations
and intrastate
interblending of the interstate
authority
primary
of their
deprive
does not
the states
congres-
absence of
transportation
over
in the
intrastate
authority. Minnesota
supplementing
sional action
has
Cases,
Congress
And
“That Interstate [the in the State, of a impair right or affect the shall just and rea- police power, require exercise of its (1947); 504-505 v. S. Corp. Gilbert, Great U. Oil 6 Gulf (1943); S. Huffman, & Dock Co. Dredge Lakes (1939); Inc., v. W. I. Southern, Ins. Atlas Co. Life 285 U. Ltd., Steamships, Malting Co., Ltd. v. Paterson Canada 413, 422-423 (1932).
346 for intrastate freight passenger and service
sonable
is incon-
business, except
requirement
insofar as such
Com-
any
sistent with
lawful order of the [Interstate
(a).7
1 (17)
merce
49 U. S. C. §
Commission].”
regulation
This Court has held that
of intrastate railroad
“primarily
service is
concern of the state.” North
States,
(1945)
Carolina v. United
325 U.
511
S.
(rates);
Massachusetts,
(1939)
Palmer v.
State and federal regulatory agencies expressed have concern over arising passenger the chronic deficit out operations train as security to the threat financial the American railroads have recommended drastic action to minimize deficit, including the discontinu- unpatronized ance of unprofitable service.8 How- ever, our concern in this case is limited to propriety injunction of a federal court enjoining enforcement of regulatory state order.9 justified The court below the exercise of with a finding that operation continued of trains Nos. 7Appellee seeks to discontinue two of passenger several trains serving the same communities. This proposed partial is a discon tinuance and not an abandonment over which the Interstate Com given merce authority Commission is exclusive under 49 U. S. C. (18-20). States, Colorado v. (1926). United §§ 271 U. I. C. C. has authority held that it has no under 49 U. S. C. 1§§ (18-20) partial to authorize a discontinuance as such of intrastate passenger City Co., service. Kansas Southern R. 94 I. C. C. 691 (1925); New York Central R. 254 I. C. C. Report, See 64th (1950) Annual Interstate Commerce Commission 5-6; 63d Report, (1949) Annual Interstate Commerce Commission 5; Freight Rates, 194-8, Increased (1949); 276 I. C. C. 32-40 4— Proceedings, Convention, 61st Annual National Association of Rail (1949) road and 378-382, Utilities Commissioners 410-414. As the of the Interstate Commerce Commission under (4) 49 U. S. C. 13 has not been invoked for decision whether as to continuance this intrastate service constitutes an undue discrim against commerce, ination cannot, proceeding, interstate we in this *6 property- appellee’s of in confiscation result would and 8 Fourteenth of the Clause Process Due the of in violation whether inquiry the threshold pursuing Amendment. case, in this exercise should federal court relating to issues consider unnecessary to find it we did appellants which case, issues appellee’s of merits of Statement in their either in this Court raise fit to see passing note that in We do in their briefs. Jurisdiction has rec past, this in the similar contentions upon performance requiring an order review of that ognized loss, pecuniary even at service, utility particular of a those from different quite subject to considerations is op intrastate entire on the return when involved Atlantic question. drawn into utility is of a erations Com Corporation Carolina v. R. Co. North Coast Line raised problems The (1907). 24 — 27 mission, and 8 trains Nos. of cannot the discontinuance by in their loss appellee’s alone reference resolved local upon predominantly depend more operation but Chesa rendered. for the service need public factor Commission Service v. Public R. Co. & Ohio peake Virginia, West in the hearing held after a Commission,
The Alabama the service. need for served, public found a area novo, no de hearing evidence found below, court use and increased exists in view of necessity public attempt We do not transportation. motor availability fact. We take findings of resolve these inconsistent been has that a federal fact note, however, prob- local essentially resolving intervene asked to from continued to the railroad balancing the loss lem of need public with the 7 and 8 trains Nos. operation Com Public Service any impact of the the order Alabama consider Atlantic Western & commerce. might on mission have interstate (1925), and Comm’n, S. 493 Georgia 267 U. Pub. Serv. R. Co. cases cited therein. Decatur, Huntsville, Tuscumbia, service directly- communities Alabama
Scottsboro, and the other affected. Public Service established its only has Alabama
Not proposed discontinuance of pass upon Commission provided it has also transportation service, but intrastate Commission to final order of the appeal any County as a matter of Montgomery the circuit court of court, after a right. Code, 1940, 48, § Ala. tit. That Commission, hearing on the record certified *7 empowered any aside Commission order found to be to set of evidence or contrary weight to the substantial law, 82, may erroneous as a matter of id. and its decision appealed Supreme Alabama Court. Id. 90.§ be to the an of the is an Statutory appeal from order Commission integral part regulatory process of under the Alabama Appeals, concentrated in one circuit are court, Code. Lines, Avery Inc. v. “supervisory Freight in character.” White, 622-623, 394, (1944). 245 Ala. 18 So. 2d 618, 398 Supreme of Alabama held will re- has that it appealed view an if directly order of the Commission as it, Nunis, Alabama Public Service Commission v. 252 Ala. 30, 34, judicial 2d 412 409, (1949), 39 So. and that independent review calls both law judgment as to process facts when a denial of due is asserted. Ala- bama Public Service v. Tel. Commission Southern Bell Co., & Tel. 253 42 1, 11-12, 655, (1949). Ala. So. 2d The fact review in that the Alabama courts is limited to the record taken presents before the Commission no infirmity. Washington Oregon constitutional ex rel. Fairchild, R. & N. Co. v. (1912). And, U. S. 510 scope whatever findings review Commission when an alleged issue, denial of rights constitutional is is relitigate now settled that a no utility right has questions ground factual on constitutional rights States, are involved. New York v. United Texas v. Rowan (1947); 334-336 Railroad Commission of Appellee & Nichols Oil complains from the Com- irreparable injury resulting in- pending judicial review, mission order but has not protective powers voked the Alabama courts to supersedeas order stay direct of a Commission pending appeal. Ala. Code, 1940, §§ tit. 84.10 Appellee procedure for has not shown the Alabama any way inadequate review Commission orders is in preserve any for ultimate review in this Court questions arising out of such orders. adequate
As
state court review of an administrative
upon predominantly
order based
local
is available
factors
to appellee,11 intervention of a federal
not neces-
sary
protection
for the
rights. Equitable
of federal
relief
may
granted only
when
Court,
the District
in its sound
“scrupulous
discretion exercised with the
regard for the
rightful independence
governments
of state
which should
at all times actuate the federal courts,”12 is convinced
10Compare
Kuykendall,
Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
by granting
public
Considering that “[f]ew
courts.”13
the federal
discretion of
upon the
higher
claim
have
interests
needless friction
avoidance of
chancellor than
must
comity
rule
usual
policies,”14 the
with state
Dis-
jurisdiction by the
equitable
the exercise of
govern
may
appellee
rights
in
this case. Whatever
trict
courts.
through
state
pursued
are to be
have
Burford
Commission
Co.,
(1943); Railroad
Oil
(Supp. 1342, does deprived That Act federal district courts administrative orders enjoin enforcement of certain state plain, speedy “A utility where affecting public rates may in of such State.” remedy efficient be had the courts involved Commission the order of the Alabama Service As John appellee’s rates, affecting is not one this case throughout have assumed applicable. Act not We son jurisdiction, supra, below had opinion this be exercised p. 345, hold that should but discretion. equitable a matter of case as sound this Dredge & Dock As this Court held Great Lakes Co. (1943): 297-298 Huffman, 319 U. S. extraordinary relief courts withholding of “This of the having authority give it is not denial on the Congress has conferred jurisdiction which v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., Railroad Commission Texas amended, as 311 U. S. Texas v. Pullman Railroad Commission of *9 (1941). is but a contrary, it On the courts .... federal . . equity . recognition . . that federal . it when interest hand in the stay public should will not interests private appears reasonably suffer. . . . courts interest public
“It in the discretionary power their equity exercise should avoid needless as to or withhold relief so grant of the states.”15 policy of the domestic obstruction of the District reasons, judgment foregoing For the Court is
Reversed. whom Jack- Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Mr. the result. concurring in joins, son of the Alabama leave Railway asked The Southern pas- of its to take off two Commission Public Service the service of Commission, deeming The senger trains. denied served, necessary for the communities these runs the United applied to Railway thereafter leave. against the order injunction District Court States injunction asking bill this of the Commission. The Due Process Clause under the was based on a claim of the bill allegations the Fourteenth Amendment. The a substantial to establish proof under failed Under Constitution. United States under claim principles the District familiar, well-established (1943), Haven, Meredith v. Winter 15 In in a case a federal court exercise of Court sustained the “does not law, where decision involving of state but matters policy governing shape state require court to determine the federal such no with agencies” “entails interference administrative legal remedy of a The absence agencies the state courts.” or with granting equitable justify does not of itself federal courts Southern, Inc., 306 v. W. I. Ins. Co. in such Atlas relief cases. Life 569-570 *10 Court likewise bill. The dismissed have should But bill. Court to dismiss District directs the plain disregard argument a line do so to chooses I am com- that Against legislation. congressional pelled protest. regu- railroad feature of conventional has the
Alabama Public of the State leave requiring latory legislation Ala. of trains. discontinuance Service Commission Com- Railway 106. The Southern 48, Code, 1940, § tit. on two trains discontinue the permission asked pany business of its total segregated items that, as ground operating at a substantial Alabama, trains were these a full permission after refused loss. The Commission process is procedural due question of hearing, and no before us. restrain enforcement brought its suit
Southern Court order in the United States District the Commission The case was heard Middle District of Alabama. for the by 28 U. S. C. three-judge court, required § a as ap- A injunction granted. was direct permanent and a decision. 28 U. S. C. peal to this lies from such a 1253. Commission holding that the order the State the Due of the Fourteenth violated Process Clause upon relied Amendment, chiefly the District Court operation of the two trains involved a fact that long settled, however, been substantial loss. It has particular a a at requirement service be rendered confiscatory a loss does not make a such service thereby taking property. an unconstitutional St. Louis Gill, 665-666; & S. F. R. Co. v. 156 U. Atlantic S. Comm’n, v. North 1; Coast Line R. Co. Carolina 206 U. S. Kansas, 278; R. Missouri Co. 216 U. S. Pacific Comm’n, Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Public Serv. Puget 603; Reynolds, Sound Traction Co. v. U. S. Bourland, 574; Light Fort Smith & Traction Co. v. Dakota, v. North R. Co. 330; see Northern Pacific can- a railroad grocery, department store Unlike service particular will not of own free discontinue business has become item of its public to the because company of a railroad “One of the duties unprofitable. providing that of common carrier is doing business as *11 public. serving the reasonably adequate facilities enjoyment and acceptance duty This arises out the and the en- granted and State powers privileges by the part represents It they retained. long dures so as are them, in company undertakes to do return of what the merely avoided because performance cannot be and its & Chesapeake loss.” pecuniary will be attended some Comm’n, at 607. supra, Public Serv. O. R. Co. v. occasion, found order have, that we on rare It is true confiscation. arbitrary as to requiring so constitute service Dakota, supra, R. Co. v. North Thus, Northern Pacific to attempting to force railroads subsidize State was Mississippi commodity. particular of a production Court R. Comm’n v. Mobile & O. productiveness and “Looking to the extent concluded: travel whole, as a the small company of the the business ex large character and population served, to ing and to the order, this pense required of the service with carrier, confronting the serious financial conditions fail financial public loss and inconvenience which its the District entail, fully agree ure would we with the commission at the concluding the order of was issued was under the circumstances when it time and Id. at 396. arbitrary and unreasonable . . . .” and us, involved, the trains Nos. 7 In the case before operated trains passenger are local between Sheffield- Alabama, oper- Tuscumbia, Chattanooga. and Southern points. four other trains between these Nos. ates stop operate do all stations and on schedule not at The State public here concerned. inconvenient of Nos. 35 and 36 found that the schedules Commission and 8 and do to” those of Trains 7 comparable “are not afford the convenience. same of Trains 7 and 8 resulted appears operation It that the in a $8,527.24 per during loss of month the twelve-month period ending February 28, During the five-month period July 31, 1949, the loss amounted to ending $10,738.51 per month. But the railroad made no claim at a a fair operating loss, failing it is receive return, upon either on its total investment or invest- its within Alabama. The ment the State of record contains findings concerning operation sketchiest But al- entirety. appear that, the railroad its it does though operated Southern has at passenger its business war years, loss aside from the it has earned substantial operating net upon income both its entire business litigation service within the State Alabama.1 This been with the seems have concerned almost exclusively *12 operations showing 7 and was Trains 8. No whatever in running made that the loss incurred these trains deprived Southern of that for its protection was invest- ment in Alabama which alone can be the basis of made a claim under the Due Process Clause the Fourteenth
1 allegations findings The record contains no on the value of accounting property particulars concerning the railroad’s no system. Finding following 23 indicates that the railroad has had the yearly operating “net income” its entire business: (average). $16,232,045
1931-1941 (average). 35,561,045 1942-1945 23,278,299 (average). 1946-1948 Finding following yearly has had the 24 indicates that railroad operating “net income” from its service within Alabama: (average). $1,508,282
1936-1941 (average). 4,220,203 1942-1945 (average). 2,598,459 1946-1948 is plaintiff’s lack in the case Amendment. The of merit complaint. it calls for dismissal of the so clear that Court rests its decision Instead, stated, as we have this long course of ground requires on that it to overturn defin- and, effect, repeal Congress in act of decisions ing jurisdiction undisputed of the district courts. It is plaintiff asserting is a claim under the Federal that the District Court Constitution. The Court admits that It 1331,1332. has C. §§ the suit. U. S. Court must decline said, however, that the District judicial of the review exercise this because order could have been had the State courts. (barring In abortive 1875, Congress the first time on 1801) opened the federal courts to claims based Act of or laws of the United States. right under the Constitution such 1875, 18 Stat. 470.2 Theretofore 3, Act of March brought pursued claims had to be the State courts under question the federal to this Court review of 73, Judiciary 1789, 25 of the Act of Stat. Co., S. Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust U. rejected argument we could not be suit brought the federal court to restrain the enforcement consistently held agency a State order. The Court has the determination to the view it cannot overrule whether federal courts should be allowed Congress as to jurisdiction, courts, concurrent with State even where plaintiff agency. to restrain action of seeks State Ames, Smyth v. Willcox Consolidated 466, 516; U. S. Co., 212 40; Gas Bacon v. Rutland R. Michigan 137; R. Co. v. Detroit & Mackinac Comm’n, Natural Co. v. 402; Oklahoma Gas
2 diversity citizenship is was Jurisdiction over cases where there 73, by Judiciary conferred 11 of the Act 1789. Stat. 78. Haven, 228, equity in Meredith v. Winter S. we held that an U. not decline to exercise its case the District Court could merely because matters of State law were involved. York Prendergast v. New
Russell, 290, 293; 261 U. S. & Tele- Co., Telephone 47; Telephone 262 U. S. Pacific 201; Railroad & graph Kuykendall, Co. v. Co., v. Duluth St. R. Comm’n Minnesota Warehouse R. Atlantic Line Prentis v. Coast 628; S. see Co., 211 U. They cannot be ex-
These cases can be overruled. now discarded was plained away. theory of the cases Co., supra, Consolidated Gas clearly stated Willcox v. in decided the same Term as the Prentis case: “That case may entirely immaterial, of local interest one long parties so as are citizens different States or question brings is involved which law the case within right party of Federal court. The of a plaintiff to choose Federal court where there is choice properly cannot be denied.” S.U. at 40. What today plaintiff holds is that if a can be sent to a State challenge agency court an order there is no federal court body available to him.3 Since the of decisions “Compare are told
3 We
the Court:
such cases as Bacon v.
Co.,
(1914),
Rutland R.
judicial
It is that the of State sought explained, which the Bacon case is now to be “derived from right utility protected the rationale that the federal of a to be 'pure property depended upon confiscation of its matters of fact’ hearing to the extent de that a novo of such facts a federal protection rights. was essential to the Prentis constitutional (1908).” 210, 228 Atlantic Coast Line R. regret necessity again saying
I there is no warrant place whatever this statement. It cannot be found at the cited opinion. merely repeats the Prentis the doctrine of the That *14 discarded, they to be contrary is thus which hold the law. waters of the the as derelicts on ought not to be left the over has ensued debate Congress, prolonged In the federal made to power grants of the broad of wisdom in- may which be power original of courts — enterprise. of economic regulation State against voked lower prevent to the proposed has been Bill after bill action. with such State interfering courts federal Act, in the Mann-Elkins by provision Finally, 1910, interlocutory an an action provided Congress acting a State the action of officer injunction restrain to Constitution to violate the Federal alleged under statute direct right with a of judges, heard a court three 1910, 18, June Supreme Court. Act appeal to the was procedure 1913, this 539, 557. 17, 36 Stat. injunction interlocutory applications to extended board order of State enforcement the to restrain By 1013. 4, 1913, March 37 Stat. Act of commission. keep liti- empowered to statute, a State was the same agency regulation validity of State concerning gation stay if to willing it was administrative own courts its three-judge for a court provision In 1925, order.4 plaintiff choice that a has a after the Act of 1875 numerous cases is made: a constitutional claim court where of State or federal depend upon what rights, repeat, we “All constitutional their try those They be forbidden are not are to be. facts found competent. choosing if their own otherwise a court of facts before having State, property up another tie a citizen of ‘A cannot State officers, own acts of its territory unauthorized invaded within & Reagan v. Loan Farmers’ own courts.’ in its suits for redress Smyth Ames, 517. 169 U. S. 362, 391; Co., Trust 543; parte Ex Railway v. Southern See McNeill at 228. 123, 165.” 211 U. S. Young, 209 S.U. hearing of such final provided that if before “It is further the State brought in a court have been suit shall application a State, to enforce such under the laws jurisdiction thereof having stay in State by a such order, accompanied such statute or injunction. permanent ato appeal was extended direct Stat. Act of Feb. was still problem, aware of fully
Congress, to the had left satisfied with *15 John- passed the in it Accordingly, courts. district over suits jurisdiction their which withdrew son Act providing orders, rate State of enforcement enjoin the Act courts. in the State remedy was available aon restriction This Stat. 775. 1934, 48 May 14, of for the order applicable, here is not district court further 1937, Congress not a rate order. controversy is a district providing jurisdiction by limited federal a State tax statute of enjoin enforcement could Act courts. in the State remedy was available where a Aug. 21, 1937, Stat. jurisdictional issue with we are concerned Plainly Congress and with continuously before which has been legislation. and detailed by explicit which it has dealt jurisdiction to the grant made a broad Congress first and other federal all constitutional federal courts as to with this Experience gave rise to dissatisfaction claims. power. limit hedge and the grant Congress began and judges, that be heard three required that the case It courts appeal available, and that the State speedy be they stay if would jurisdiction could have exclusive enjoin jurisdiction withdrew administrative order. It orders in the two fields enforcement of State statutes dissatisfaction with federal greatest where the long as a State rem- existed —rate orders and taxation —so proceedings pending under such statute or order the determination court, any proceedings of such suit all court of the such State to restrain the execution of such statute or order shall United States stayed pending the final determination of such suit in the courts ' of the 1014. See 28 U. S. C. 2284 State.” Stat. § taking litigation did not avail itself of this means for Alabama from the federal court. away take did not Congress But was available.
edy like the one decide a case district court to power of 17 wording § by recognized it Instead, before us. had that it legislation later of Mann-Elkins Act and that such courts the federal to resort to given right denied not to be jurisdiction, power obligatory was an more desirable might be policy a matter of because as a State court. claims to raise such constitutional amendatory these rejects guidance The Court the exercise of upon placing specific limitations acts, all regula- local affecting in cases district court jurisdiction of now limits the Instead, tion. the Court Congress had amended though the federal courts as of Title 28 to read: original jurisdiction shall have
“The district courts controversy matter in of all civil actions wherein the *16 exclusive of $3,000, of exceeds the sum or value Constitution, under the and arises costs, interest and that States, provided United laws or treaties of the not exercise this the district courts shall challenge to an order involves a where suit of (New matter regulatory a state commission.” italics.) deci of the Court’s change significance
It does not
As we
maxims.
sugar
equity
sion to
it with
of
coat
decisions of this
have
there is no warrant
in the
seen,
“adequate
an
plaintiff
has
saying
bring
merely
may
at law”
because he
suit
remedy
remedy
law,”
An
at
as a bar
“adequate
State courts.
remedy
courts,
relief in the federal
refers to
equitable
Exploration,
of federal courts. Petroleum
on the law side
Di
v.
Commission,
209, 217;
Giovanni
Inc. v.
304 U. S.
v.
Assn.,
64, 69; Henrietta Mills
Camden
296 U. S.
Ins.
Risty
Chicago,
v.
County,
121, 126;
281 U. S.
Rutherford
An
Co.,
equity
court
R. I. & Pac. R.
270 U. S.
plaintiff
if
by injunction
may
give
decline to
relief
compensated by money damages,
adequately
would be
Dallas,
v.
255 U. S.
“remedy at
Armour & Co.
his
law.”
Co.,
Clay
But
Dickey
v.
Here the has judicial exhausted its non rem- Avery Freight Lines, edies. Persons, Inc. v. Ala. 32 S. 2d Concededly there nois State statute which should make construe. There is no consideration
to discretion, a a to enter- equity, court of as matter of decline in injunction. a an Nor the situation tain bill for does in which a of State law specialized suit involve field this at home. On the con- judges federal are not out-of-State easy grasp within the claim that is made here is trary, the competence of certainly within the judges, of federal in experience law, with judges bred Alabama wide three declining to for administration. reason its as well be more desirable may entertain suit is that it a State order of a matter of State-Federal relations lower court originally the State agency to be reviewed instance in a federal challenged in the first and not to be with the wisdom of such quarrel It not for me to court. is exercise of Congress, a But constitutional policy. of the inferior jurisdiction define the power its to courts, has decided otherwise. if, relief on balance very its nature denies
Equity by equity, relevant of convenience of considerations extraordinary remedy inequitable grant would always equity have injunction. Federal courts of a it was never doctrine. But equitable acted on this should exercise that a federal court equity doctrine because a merely dismiss a suit judicial discretion to entertain it. State court could avail- solely on the because discretion based This so would all remedy in the State courts ability of gave This Act practical purposes repeal the Act of 1875. pos- theretofore jurisdiction not to the federal courts up making litigant could tie sessed so that a State for redress bring that he suit requiring such claim precisely That was in its own courts. challenge to local action to hear constitutional upon placed State on the basis of the limitations vast precisely And amendments. action the Civil War given plain- objections the choice of courts because of *18 piecemeal restrictive Congress, by tiffs Act of against some federal claims require did that legislation, in State litigated originally regulatory action be local for review. here brought courts and from there Congress now finds that By swoop fell the Court one 1910, 1913, in the Acts of indulged legislation needless so Congress, By measures, 1934 and 1937. these needless but inade decides, gave the Court now appears federal courts quate relief, since it now that against Act of 1875 power have inherent to sterilize the all For if this proceedings challenging regulation. local par anything beyond disposing decision means this ticular litigation it means hereafter no court against any should entertain a a State suit action of agency. every judicial For must afford review in State its courts of a claim under the Due Clause if such Process jurisdiction. claim a federal give would judicial absence of courts, such review in the State State Valley action under the of Ohio doctrine Ben Avon Co. Borough, 253 would because nugatory unconstitutional.
I regret my inability to make clear to the majority of opinion this Court flagrant is in contradiction with the unbroken course decisions in this Court seventy-five years.