Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1951 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsequitable discretioncomityabstentionstate administrative orderspredominantly local factorsadequate state remedyBurford

Facts

Alabama law prohibited a railroad from abandoning any portion of its public service without first obtaining a permit from the Alabama Public Service Commission, and severe penalties attached to violations. Southern Railway applied to discontinue intrastate passenger trains Nos. 7 and 8 between Tuscumbia, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, alleging that use had declined and revenues fell far short of direct operating expenses. After a hearing in the affected area, the Commission denied permission, finding a public need for the service and concluding that Southern had not tried more economical operating methods. Rather than pursue the statutory appeal available in Alabama courts, Southern went to federal court and obtained an injunction against enforcement of the order and related penalty provisions.

Issue

When a federal district court has jurisdiction over a challenge to a state administrative order, should it nevertheless decline to exercise equitable jurisdiction and refuse an injunction where the order concerns a predominantly local regulatory problem and the state provides adequate judicial review? More specifically, should the federal court enjoin enforcement of Alabama's order requiring continuation of intrastate passenger service?

Rule

Even where federal jurisdiction exists, a federal court of equity should withhold injunctive relief against enforcement of a state administrative order when the dispute turns on predominantly local factors, the state has established an integrated regulatory and judicial review system adequate to protect federal rights, and federal intervention is not necessary to preserve those rights. The usual rule of comity governs unless the district court is convinced that the asserted federal right cannot be preserved except by the extraordinary remedy of a federal injunction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Lakes Transit, a regional bus carrier incorporated in Delaware, operates local routes inside Iowa. The Iowa Transportation Board denies Prairie Lakes permission to discontinue a lightly used intrastate route between Cedar Rapids and Dubuque after finding local residents still need the service, and Iowa law provides a right of appeal to a designated state court plus authority to stay the order pending appeal.

Prairie Lakes sues in federal district court for an injunction, alleging diversity and that forced continued operation at a loss violates the Fourteenth Amendment. What is the strongest argument for the federal court to decline relief?

Explanation. Even where federal jurisdiction exists, a federal court of equity should ordinarily withhold injunctive relief against enforcement of a state administrative order when the controversy turns on predominantly local factors and the state provides adequate judicial review, including interim protection. The majority emphasized comity, the local nature of utility-service decisions, and the adequacy of state-court review. It did not hold that jurisdiction was absent, nor require a pending state action or a merits determination first. (Derived from Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co. (1951).)