Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Department

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsState Sovereign ImmunityCommerce ClauseFederal Employers' Liability Actsovereign immunitystate consentwaiverFELA

Facts

The Terminal Railway was wholly owned and operated by the State of Alabama through its State Docks Department and had been since 1927. It operated about 50 miles of track near the Mobile state docks, served the docks and nearby industries, operated an interchange railroad with privately owned carriers, and performed services for profit under authority to operate as though it were an ordinary common carrier. The railway conducted substantial interstate commerce and complied with federal railroad regulatory regimes, making it indisputably a common carrier by railroad engaging in interstate commerce. Petitioners, Alabama citizens employed by the railway, sought damages under FELA for personal injuries sustained during their employment.

Issue

Whether a State that owns and operates a railroad in interstate commerce may successfully assert sovereign immunity against a federal-court suit by its employee under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. More specifically, whether Congress intended FELA to authorize such suits and had constitutional power to do so notwithstanding the State's immunity claim.

Rule

Congress, acting under its Commerce Clause power, may condition a State's operation of a railroad in interstate commerce on amenability to suit under FELA. When Congress has authorized suit against every interstate common carrier by railroad, a State that thereafter chooses to operate such a railroad is deemed to have accepted that condition and thus consented to suit; whether that consent exists is a question of federal law when the State acts in a sphere subject to congressional regulation.

🔒

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.

The State of Oregon creates Cascadia Port Rail, a wholly state-owned line operating freight between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. After a yard worker is injured, he sues the railroad in federal district court under a federal statute providing that "every common carrier by railroad" engaged in interstate commerce is liable in damages to injured employees and may be sued in federal district court.

The railroad argues that the statute does not apply because Congress never specifically mentioned state-owned railroads. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority read FELA's reference to "every" common carrier by railroad in interstate commerce according to its broad terms. It relied on prior decisions applying similarly worded federal railroad statutes to state-owned railroads and rejected reading in a sovereign-immunity exception that Congress did not write. Under that reasoning, when Congress uses all-embracing language to regulate interstate rail carriers, a state-owned carrier is included unless Congress provides otherwise.