Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

DiSanto v. Pennsylvania

Supreme Court of the United States · 1927 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseForeign CommerceCommerce Clauseforeign commercestate licensingsteamship ticketsdirect burden

Facts

Pennsylvania's 1921 Act required anyone other than a railroad or steamship company to obtain a license before selling steamship tickets or orders for transportation to or from foreign countries within the state. The statute required advertising the application, proof of good moral character and fitness, a list of at least three steamship lines for which the applicant was agent, a $1,000 bond, and a $500 annual license fee, with criminal penalties for unlicensed sales. DiSanto represented four steamship companies operating between the United States and Europe, sold their tickets and transportation orders from Harrisburg, collected money for tickets, and promptly transmitted the amounts received to the companies. He was prosecuted for selling such tickets without obtaining the license required by the Act.

Issue

May a state require a person selling steamship tickets or transportation orders for voyages between the United States and Europe to obtain a state license, pay a fee, and satisfy other statutory conditions, or does such a law directly burden foreign commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?

Rule

The soliciting of passengers and the sale of steamship tickets and orders for passage between the United States and Europe are a recognized part of foreign commerce. A state law that by its necessary operation directly interferes with or burdens foreign commerce is an unconstitutional regulation of that commerce and cannot be sustained as an exercise of the state's police power to prevent possible fraud.

🔒

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.

In Newark, New Jersey, Elena Ruiz operates Harbor Passage Services, a storefront that sells ocean-voyage tickets for trips from the United States to Spain on behalf of several steamship lines. New Jersey makes it a misdemeanor for any non-carrier seller of tickets for travel to or from foreign countries to sell them without first obtaining a state license, posting a bond, and paying a yearly fee.

If Elena is prosecuted for selling the tickets without the license, what is the strongest constitutional argument against the statute as applied to her?

Explanation. The majority treated the soliciting of passengers and sale of steamship tickets or transportation orders for passage between the United States and Europe as a well-recognized part of foreign commerce. A state law that, by its necessary operation, directly interferes with or burdens that activity is invalid. Licensing, bonding, and fee requirements imposed on a non-carrier seller initiating those transactions are a direct burden on foreign commerce.