Pullman Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas

United States District Court, three-judge court · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsState administrative powerThree-judge district courtsRailroad Commission of Texasstatutory authorityexpress delegationadministrative lawunjust discrimination

Facts

The Railroad Commission entered an order requiring that no sleeping car be operated on any railroad line in Texas, when occupied by passengers, unless it was continuously in the charge of an employee having the rank and position of Pullman conductor. On some Texas routes, especially short routes with only one Pullman car, the Pullman car was handled by a porter while overall control remained with the train conductor; when two or more Pullman cars were carried, a Pullman conductor was used. Plaintiffs challenged the order on several grounds, including that no Texas statute authorized it, that any rate-related aspects were issued without required notice, and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the Pullman Company. Defendants argued the order could be supported under statutes addressing abuses and unjust discrimination.

Issue

Whether the Texas Railroad Commission had statutory authority to require every occupied Pullman sleeping car in Texas to be continuously in the charge of a Pullman conductor, and whether the order could be sustained as a correction of abuse, unjust discrimination, or as a rate order.

Rule

A Texas administrative commission that is a creature of statute has only the powers expressly delegated by statute; it cannot derive authority by implication or common law, cannot itself define a new abuse absent legislative definition, and cannot sustain an order as a rate order where required notice was not given or where it lacks jurisdiction over the regulated entity.

🔒

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 Kansas Transit Board ordered every overnight bus operating between Wichita and Dodge City to carry a separate onboard service supervisor whenever any passenger is asleep on the vehicle. The Board cited its general mandate to oversee transportation safety, but no Kansas statute specifically requires such a supervisor or identifies the absence of one as a statutory abuse.

If a carrier challenges the order, which argument is strongest under the governing rule of this case?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a commission that is a creature of statute has only powers expressly delegated by statute and derives none by implication or common law. If no statute specifically authorizes the requirement and no law defines the challenged practice as an abuse, the order fails without reaching arbitrariness. (Derived from Pullman Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas (n.d.).)