Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsMootnessInterstate Commerce CommissionInterstate Commercemootnesscapable of repetition yet evading reviewICCterminal facilities

Facts

The Interstate Commerce Commission ordered appellants to cease granting Young an alleged undue preference for a limited period beginning September 1, 1908, later extended to November 15. The Terminal Company's piers at Galveston were terminal facilities for the Southern Pacific railroad and steamship system, and Young's lease arrangement there enabled him to greatly expand his export business in cotton seed products, earning a substantial per-ton advantage while some competitors ceased exporting. The terminal property had been dedicated by ordinance, deed conditions, and state legislation to shipping and transportation purposes for public terminal use. The Southern Pacific Company controlled and operated the railroads and the Terminal Company as a unified transportation system, and Young's lease required him to route shipments over the system and gave the Terminal Company the option to meet competing rates.

Issue

Was the appeal moot because the Commission's short-term order expired pending review? If not, did the Interstate Commerce Commission have jurisdiction over the Terminal Company and authority to condemn the Young lease as an unlawful preference affecting interstate and foreign commerce?

Rule

An appeal is not moot merely because a challenged order expires pending review when the controversy is of a continuing nature, the order may affect further proceedings, and otherwise short-term orders capable of repetition would evade review. Terminal facilities that are necessary parts of a unified transportation system engaged in interstate commerce fall within the Act to Regulate Commerce, and a carrier may not grant one shipper preferential terminal facilities unavailable to others.

🔒

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.

A federal transportation commission issued a 90-day cease-and-desist order barring Lakefront Transfer Lines from giving a grain exporter exclusive loading priority at its Duluth docks. While the carrier's petition for review was pending, the 90 days expired, but the commission stated it was still investigating the same practice and could rely on the order in later enforcement steps.

Should the reviewing court dismiss the petition as moot?

Explanation. The majority held that an expired short-term order is not necessarily moot where the underlying controversy is continuing, the order may serve as a basis for further proceedings, and otherwise such orders would be capable of repetition yet evade review. The key distinction is from cases where the challenged act was fully executed and nothing remained for the court's judgment to affect.