Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Munn v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1877 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerCommerce ClausePublic Interest RegulationFourteenth Amendmentdue processpolice power

Facts

Illinois enacted a law fixing maximum charges for storing grain in certain warehouses located in cities with at least 100,000 inhabitants, including Chicago, where grain was stored in bulk and mixed so that separate lots could not be preserved. Chicago had become the principal grain market through which grain from western states passed to eastern and foreign markets, and the grain-elevator business involved large warehouses handling immense quantities of grain. Although there were fourteen such warehouses in Chicago in 1874, they were controlled by nine business firms, and storage rates were agreed upon and publicly published annually. The owners challenged the statute as unconstitutional.

Issue

May a state, consistent with the United States Constitution, fix maximum charges for grain storage in privately owned warehouses when those warehouses are used in a business of great public consequence? More specifically, does such regulation violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the constitutional ban on preferences among ports?

Rule

When private property is devoted to a use in which the public has an interest, it becomes affected with a public interest and is subject to public regulation for the common good, including regulation of the charges imposed for that use. A statute regulating such use does not deprive an owner of property without due process merely because it limits the price that may be charged. The constitutional prohibition on preferences among ports limits Congress, not the states.

🔒

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.

Colorado enacts a statute setting maximum fares for a privately owned ferry that carries residents, workers, and farm goods across a river between two communities near Pueblo. The ferry is the only practical crossing for many miles, and its owner, Lila Moreno, challenges the law as an unconstitutional deprivation of property under the Fourteenth Amendment.

How should a court applying the majority's rule resolve Lila's due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that when private property is devoted to a use in which the public has an interest, it becomes affected with a public interest and may be regulated for the common good, including by fixing maximum charges. Ferries were one of the classic examples the Court relied on. The regulation therefore does not necessarily deprive the owner of property without due process.