United States v. ICC

Background

The dispute began when the United States took over certain piers at Norfolk during the war and performed wharfage services itself. The railroads kept published wharfage charges and refused to make allowances; the Government filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission asking both that the charges be declared unlawful and that the Government be awarded money damages (reparations). The Commission denied relief and dismissed the complaint. The United States then sued in federal court to set aside the Commission’s order; the three-judge district court dismissed the suit without ruling on the merits.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Government, acting as a shipper, could seek judicial review of a Commission order denying reparations and whether such review required a three-judge court. The Court rejected the idea that the Government “cannot sue itself,” found nothing in the statute (§ 9) that bars court review of an unlawful Commission order denying damages, and explained that earlier doctrines that closed courts to negative reparation orders no longer control. The Court held that courts may review Commission reparations denials for arbitrariness or lack of substantial evidence and that a single district judge — not a three-judge panel — may hear such challenges.

Real world impact

The ruling means the Government and, by extension, other shippers can ask federal courts to overturn ICC orders that wrongly deny money damages. The case was sent back to the district court for a decision on the facts and law. The opinion notes practical anomalies (for example, the Attorney General appearing on both sides) but confirms court access to challenge administrative findings.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that long-settled precedents and the statutory scheme precluded court review when a shipper first sought reparations before the Commission; those Justices would have affirmed the dismissal.