Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.
- Decided
- March 3, 1941
- Docket
- 283
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,480 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that federal courts should ordinarily abstain where the resolution of a federal constitutional issue may be rendered irrelevant by the determination of a predicate state-law question — Beard v. Banks (2006)
- holding that federal courts should abstain when the determination of an unsettled issue of state law by state courts could avoid the necessity of deciding a federal constitutional question — (untitled) (1990)
- holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding cases presenting unsettled questions of state law — Marie v. Mosier (2015)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.
In those sections of Texas where the local passenger traffic is slight, trains carry but one sleeping car. These trains, unlike trains having two or more sleepers, are without%a Pullman conductor; the sleeper is in charge of a porter who is subject to the train conductor’s control. As is well known, porters on Pullmans are colored and conductors are white. Addressing itself to this situation, the Texas Railroad Commission after due hearing ordered that “no sleeping car shall be operated on any line of railroad in the State of Texas . . . unless such [*498] cars are continuously in the charge of an employee . . . having the rank and position of Pullman conductor.” Thereupon, the Pullman Company and the railroads affected brought this action in a federal district court to enjoin the Commission’s order. Pullman porters were permitted to intervene as complainants, and Pullman conductors entered the litigation in support of the order. Three judges having been convened, Judicial Code, § 266, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 380, the court enjoined enforcement of the order. From this decree, the case came here directly. Judicial Code, § 238, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 345.
The Pullman Company and the railroads assailed the order as unauthorized by Texas law as well as violative of the Equal Protection, the Due Process and the Commerce Clauses of the Constitution. The intervening porters adopted these objections but mainly objected to the order as a discrimination against Negroes in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 380
- 28 U.S.C. § 345
- 28 U.S.C. § 41
- 29 U.S.C. § 101-15
Cite this
Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.