Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1949 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionDue ProcessInterstate CommercePolice PowerTraffic RegulationEqual Protection ClauseDue Process Clause

Facts

New York City traffic regulations prohibited operating an advertising vehicle on city streets, but allowed business notices on business delivery vehicles when those vehicles were engaged in the owner's usual business and were not used mainly for advertising. Railway Express Agency operated about 1,900 trucks in New York City in its express business and sold exterior truck space for advertising mostly unrelated to its own business. It was convicted and fined for carrying such advertisements. The local court concluded that advertising on vehicles distracted drivers and pedestrians and therefore affected public safety in street use.

Issue

Whether New York City's regulation forbidding advertising vehicles, while exempting business notices on delivery vehicles used in the owner's business, violated the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Rule

When local authorities regulate traffic safety and highway use, courts do not reweigh the wisdom or soundness of the regulation if it has a relation to the local traffic problem and that relation is not shown to be palpably false. Under equal protection, a classification is valid if it is an allowable one related to the regulation's purpose, judged by practical considerations based on experience rather than theoretical inconsistencies. Where traffic control and highway use are involved and no conflicting federal regulation exists, local authorities have great leeway even if the regulation materially interferes with interstate commerce.

🔒

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.

Seattle adopts a street-use rule forbidding vehicles from displaying paid advertisements for unrelated businesses while allowing plumbing vans, florists' trucks, and bakery delivery vehicles to show their own business names and services when actually engaged in those businesses. Harbor Route Logistics sells exterior panel space on its vans to local restaurants and challenges the rule after being fined.

Under the majority's approach, the strongest basis for upholding the rule against an equal protection challenge is that:

Explanation. The majority upheld a classification between general advertising and notices on vehicles used in the owner's business because local authorities could reasonably judge that the exempted category posed a different traffic problem in nature or extent. Equal protection is assessed through practical considerations based on experience, not theoretical insistence that the same message is equally distracting wherever displayed.