Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Background

In 1906 the Interstate Commerce Commission opened a broad investigation into railroad consolidations and practices. The commission called Edward H. Harriman, a Union Pacific director and executive, and bankers from Kuhn, Loeb & Company, including Kahn, to ask about large stock purchases and possible secret interests. Harriman and Kahn refused to answer questions about who owned or profited from certain railroad stock transactions. A federal Circuit Court ordered them to answer some questions and denied other questions; both sides appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Justices considered whether the commission’s power to subpoena witnesses extends to general, self-initiated inquiries or is limited to investigations into specific violations. Writing for the majority, Justice Holmes read the statute as limiting compulsory testimony to matters that could be the subject of a complaint or a specific breach of the law. He stressed the breadth and privacy implications of allowing unlimited subpoenas and relied on the structure of sections of the law to reach a narrow construction. The Court reversed the orders that compelled answers in two appeals and affirmed the denial in the third appeal.

Real world impact

The ruling narrows the commission’s ability to force witnesses in broad fact-finding probes and protects individuals from compelled disclosure in purely general inquiries. It leaves intact the commission’s subpoena power in investigations tied to specific complaints or alleged violations. The decision reshapes how the agency conducts wide-ranging studies of industry practices.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Day, joined by Justices Harlan and McKenna, dissented, arguing Congress intended broader investigatory power under the statute to inform legislation and enforcement and that historical practice supported such subpoenas.