Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. State
Headline: Federal regulator can block state-approved cheap government freight rates when those discounts unfairly harm interstate commerce, and the Court reversed a lower court that had declared such oversight barred by law.
Holding: The Court held that the federal regulator may prohibit reduced or free government freight rates when such rates cause unreasonable discrimination or undue prejudice to interstate commerce, reversing the lower court’s decree.
- Allows federal regulator to stop government-only discounted freight rates that harm interstate commerce.
- Limits state commissions’ ability to exempt government purchases from rate increases.
- Affects railroads, local suppliers, quarries, and government highway projects.
Summary
Background
A federal rate law allowed carriers to transport property free or at reduced rates for governments and charities. The federal regulator raised interstate freight rates 25% in 1920. Tennessee raised intrastate rates but excluded carload shipments of stone and gravel destined for public highway work for government buyers. Rail carriers asked the federal regulator to remove that exception as unfair to interstate commerce. The regulator found undue discrimination and ordered intrastate rates raised to match interstate rates. Tennessee sued in federal court, which held the regulator had no power under the statute and set aside the order; the government appealed.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the statute’s allowance for reduced government rates prevents the federal regulator from stopping such reductions when they harm interstate commerce. The Court said no. It explained that any preference can be discriminatory but is unlawful only when it is unreasonable, undue, or unjust, and that those factual determinations belong to the regulator. Section 22 must be read with the rest of the law; it permits some preferential treatment but does not let carriers or states justify practices that unduly prejudice interstate commerce. The Court therefore reversed the lower court.
Real world impact
The decision means state officials and carriers cannot rely on a literal reading of the reduced-rate provision to shield government-only discounts that actually disadvantage other shippers or localities or harm interstate trade. Railroads, local suppliers, and state commissions must expect federal review of such exceptions. Because the regulator’s factual findings were not introduced in the trial, the Court treated those findings as conclusive in this appeal.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice did not participate in the decision; there were no published dissents or concurrences in the text.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?