Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Pa. R.R., 382 U.S. 281 (1966)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-01-17
Topic
general

Per Curiam. In the three-judge District Court from which this appeal comes to us, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sued to enjoin the enforcement of a duly promulgated order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on the sole ground that the order conflicted with a federal statute. The Commission, among other defenses, con *282 tended that the federal statute was unconstitutional, but the District Court decided the case in favor of the railroad and issued an appropriate injunction. 240 F. Supp. 233. It follows from our recent decision in Swift & Co. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
25 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Three-Judge District Courts A suit seeking to enjoin a state administrative order on the ground that the order conflicts with a federal statute is not grounded in the "unconstitutionality" of a state measure and therefore does not require a three-judge district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281.
  2. Civil Procedure — Three-Judge District Courts The provision requiring a three-judge district court to enjoin an Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 2282, does not apply where the validity of a federal statute is merely drawn in question, even if that question is decided; it applies only where an interlocutory or permanent injunction is sought to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress. Garment Workers v. Donnelly Co., 304 U.S. 243, 250
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Direct Appeal Where no three-judge district court was required to adjudicate a suit, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 to entertain a direct appeal.
  4. Civil Procedure — Removal Where a direct appeal is taken before the governing jurisdictional rule is clarified and the appellant would otherwise be deprived of appellate review, the Supreme Court may vacate the judgment below and remand to the district court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the court of appeals. Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 254
Per Curiam.

In the three-judge District Court from which this appeal comes to us, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sued to enjoin the enforcement of a duly promulgated order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on the sole ground that the order conflicted with a federal statute. The Commission, among other defenses, con *282 tended that the federal statute was unconstitutional, but the District Court decided the case in favor of the railroad and issued an appropriate injunction. 240 F. Supp. 233.

It follows from our recent decision in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, ante, p. 111, that the injunction sought by the railroad, being based on incompatibility between the state order and the federal statute, was not grounded in the “unconstitutionality” of a state measure so as to require a three-judge tribunal under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1964 ed.). Nor is § 2282, requiring such a tribunal in order to enjoin “any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution,” invoked by the Commission’s defense that the federal statute is unconstitutional; it is settled that this provision “does not provide for a case where the validity of an Act of Congress is merely drawn in question, albeit that question be decided, but only for a case where there is an application for an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress.” Garment Workers v. Donnelly Co., 304 U. S. 243, 250.

Because a three-judge court was not required to adjudicate this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 (1964 ed.) to entertain a direct appeal. It does not appear from the record that the Commission lodged a protective appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so has almost certainly expired. The appeal to this Court occurred before Swift & Co. v. Wick-ham, supra, was decided, and there is no reason why the Commission should be deprived of appellate review. In accordance with precedent, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 254.

It is so ordered.