Roach v. United States

Background

A Panamanian man who ran buses for 23 years says Canal Zone authorities pushed him out of business without notice. He held a Panama-issued license and ran routes that began and ended in Panama but crossed the Canal Zone. The Zone awarded all cross-Canal public transportation to a single Delaware corporation; the petitioner was later criminally convicted after losing access to those routes.

Reasoning

The core question raised was whether the Canal Zone’s action deprived this bus operator of fair procedures guaranteed by the Canal Zone’s Bill of Rights and whether his treaty-supported right to cross the Zone was improperly curtailed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, so it did not decide the legal merits. Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the petitioner had a treaty-backed right of way and that denying notice and a hearing violated the Zone’s due-process guarantees analogous to the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the lower-court judgment and the exclusive contract remain in force, and the petitioner’s conviction stands. That outcome removed a long-time small operator from the market, affected his 30 employees, and left the practical enforcement of Canal Zone rules unchanged. The denial is not a ruling on the legal merits, so the substantive constitutional and treaty questions remain unresolved by the high court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas would have reviewed or reversed the decision. He emphasized treaty protections for cross-zone travel, invoked the Canal Zone’s Bill of Rights, and criticized the Zone’s administration for denying basic notice and hearing rights.