Cases - 1913 term

Weeks v. United States

Tue, 02 Dec 1913 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Weeks

1834 Penn Street Kansas City MO 64507

Kansas City, MO 64507

United States

39° 45' 22.3884" N, 94° 50' 16.3896" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

461

Petitioner

Weeks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1912-1914)

Decided By

White Court (1912-1914)

Opinion

232 U.S. 383 (1914)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1913

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1914

Facts of the Case

Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions.

Question

Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. The Court also held that the government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the Fourth Amendment. To allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule."

Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Atchison T & SF R Co.

Wed, 14 Jan 1914 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Interstate Commerce Comm.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Atchison T & SF R Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1912-1914)

Decided By

White Court (1912-1914)

Opinion

234 U.S. 294 (1914)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1914

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1914

Facts of the Case

A railroad company in Texas charged higher haulage rates for service between Shreveport, Louisiana and Dallas, Texas, than it did for service involving greater distances within Texas. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) ordered the railroad to charge similar rates for similar distances within and between states.

Question

Did the ICC have the power to regulate intrastate rates?

Conclusion

The regulation was legitimate. Justice Hughes argued that in situations where interstate and intrastate commerce are "so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other," Congress may lawfully exercise authority. In fostering and regulating interstate commerce, Congress may take "all measures necessary or appropriate" even if that means affecting intrastate commerce as well.

Houston, East and West Texas Railway Co. v. United States

jgoldman — Tue, 28 Oct 1913 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Interstate Commerce Commission

"1301 Constitution Avenue**** NW" Washington DC 20004

Washington, DC 20004

United States

38° 53' 32.7696" N, 77° 1' 51.8484" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

567

Appellant

Houston, East and West Texas Railway Company et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

United States

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 568, Texas and Pacific Railway Co. v. United States

Heard By

White Court (1912-1914)

Decided By

White Court (1912-1914)

Opinion

234 U.S. 342 (1914)

Argued

Tuesday, October 28, 1913

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1914

Advocates

Hiram M. Garwood (argued the cause for the appellants)

Winfred T. Denison (Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)

P. J. Farrell (argued the cause for the Interstate Commerce Commission)

Ruffin G. Pleasant (Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, argued the ause for the Railroad Commission of Louisiana)

Luther M. Walter (argued the cause for the Railroad Commission of Louisiana, Intervenor)

Facts of the Case

The Houston, East and West Texas Railroad and the Texas and Pacific Railway were railroad companies operating rail lines between Shreveport, Louisiana and points in Texas. The Texas Railroad Commission mandated that they charge higher rates on freight travelling between Louisiana and Texas than on freight travelling solely within Texas. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) found that the interstate rates were unreasonable and illegally discriminated against freight traffic originating in Shreveport. The ICC established maximum rates and ordered the railroads to fix their intrastate rate schedules. The railroads challenged the order in United States Commerce Court, alleging that the ICC did not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. The Commerce Court upheld the ICC order. The railroads then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Did the ICC have the power to regulate the railroads' intrastate rates?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Commerce Court and upheld the ICC order. Congress was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, which it chose to do through the ICC. This power extended to "matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority. Since the price discrimination adversely affected interstate commerce, "it is immaterial…that the discrimination arises from intrastate rates as compared with interstate rates." Therefore, the railroads' intrastate rates were subject to regulation and the ICC order was valid.