Williams v. RileyWilliams v. Riley
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- McReynolds
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice McReynolds,announced by the Chief Justice.
By Aсts approved July 11, 1916, Chap. 241, 39 Stat. 355, and Nov. 9, 1921,. Chap. 119, 42 Stat. 212, Congress provided for aid to the states in road-making and directed “ thаt all highways constructed or reconstructed *79 under the prоvisions of this Act shall be free from tolls of all kinds.” California assented to the provisions of these acts and under them reсeived large sums of money from the United States.
By the Motor Vеhicle Fuel Tax Statutes, Chap. 267, Act 1923, Chap. 359, Act 1925, and Chaps.. 716, 795, Aсt 1927, the California Legislature defined motor vehicle fuel аnd directed that all distributors of it should be licensed and pay taxes to the Controller of the State, amounting to three сents per ‘gallon sold, less an allowance of one per centum. These statutes further provide for reimbursing purсhasers of fuel not used for operating vehicles upon public highways.
Appellants, .along with thousands of other citizеns and taxpayers of California, operate motor vehicles along the highways. They have procured, and must hеreafter procure, the necessary fuel from licensed distributors at prices enhanced by the amount of the thrеe cent tax.
The original bill, filed in the District Court of the United Statеs August 4, 1928, names as the only defendant the State Controller — the оfficer charged with the duty of enforcing the Motor Vehiclе Fuel Tax Statutes. It proceeds upon the theory that thоse statutes, under the form of taxing dealers from whom apрellants and all other operators of motor vehicles must buy, in effect exact tolls for the use of the highways, also grant certain favors to the distributors, and deprive all’ such рurchasers of their property without due process оf -law. Therefore, it is said, they conflict with the Fourteenth Amendmеnt, the Federal Highway Acts, and the Constitution of California. The рrayer is for a decree declaring their invalidity and for аn injunction restraining defendant from attempting to enforce them, etc.
In the court below — three judges sitting — the bill was dismissed, without writtеn “opinion.
Appellants may not undertake to test the validity of the questioned acts by a proceeding of this character. *80 Frothingham, v. Mellon, Sec’y of the Treasury, 262 U. S. 447, 487, 488, announces the applicable doctrine.
“ The administration of any statute, likely to produce additional taxation to be imposed upon a vаst number of taxpayers, the extent of whose several liаbility is indefinite and constantly changing, is essentially a matter of рublic” and not of individual concern.”
The federal courts have no power per se to review and annul aсts of state legislatures upon the ground that they conflict with the federal or state constitutions. “ That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.”
The decree below is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Van Devanter and Mr. Justice Butlerare of opinion that the appellants’ status is such as entitles them to test the validity of the California statutes in question; that these statutes do not exact tolls for the use of highways within the meaning of the limitation contained in the Federal Highway acts, and are not subject to the other objections urged against them; and that for these reasons the decree below should be affirmed.