Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines
| Decision Date | 06 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Citation | 75 S.Ct. 191,99 L.Ed. 68,348 U.S. 61 |
| Parties | Latham CASTLE, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, et al., Petitioners, v. HAYES FREIGHT LINES, Inc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr.John L. Davidson, Jr., Springfield, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. David Axelrod, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
This case raises important questions concerning the power of states to bar interstate motor carriers from use of state roads as punishment for repeated violations of state highway regulations. The respondent Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. is such a carrier transporting goods to and from many points in Illinois and seven other states.1 This extensive interstate business is done under a certificate of convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission under authority of the Federal Motor Carrier Act.2 Hayes also does an intrastate carrier business in Illinois under a certificate issued by state authorities. Illinois has a statute which limits the weight of freight that can be carried in commercial trucks over Illinois highways; the same statute also provides for a balanced distribution of freight loads in relation to the truck's axles.3 Repeated violations of these provisions by trucks of a carrier are made punishable by total suspension of the carrier's right to use Illinois state highways for periods of ninety days and one year.4 This action was brought in a state court to restrain Illinois officials from prosecuting Hayes as a repeated violator. The State Supreme Court held that the punishment of suspension provided by the state statute could not be imposed on the interstate operations of the respondent Hayes. Such a state suspension of interstate transportation, it was decided, would conflict with the Federal Motor Carrier Act which is the supreme law of the land.5 We granted the State's petition for certiorari. 347 U.S. 1009, 74 S.Ct. 865.
Congress in the Motor Carrier Act adopted a comprehensive plan for regulating the carriage of goods by motor truck in interstate commerce. The federal plan of control was so all-embracing that former power of states over interstate motor carriers was greatly reduced. No power at all was left in states to determine what carriers could or could not operate in interstate commerce. Exclusive power of the Federal Government to make this determination is shown by § 306 of 49 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C.A. § 306 which describes the conditions under which the Interstate Commerce Commission can issue certificates of convenience and necessity. And § 312 of the same title provides that all certificates, permits or licenses issued by the Commission 'shall remain in effect until suspended or terminated as herein provided.' But in order to provide stability for operating rights of carriers, Congress placed within very narrow limits the Commission's power to suspend or revoke an outstanding certificate. No certificate is to be revoked, suspended or changed until after a hearing and a finding that a carrier has willfully failed to comply with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act or with regulations properly promulgated under it.6 Under these circumstances, it would be odd if a state could take action amounting to a suspension or revocation of an interstate carrier's commission-granted right to operate. Cf. Hill v. State of Florida, 325 U.S. 538, 65 S.Ct. 1373, 89 L.Ed. 1782. It cannot be doubted that suspension of this common carrier's right to use Illinois highways is the equivalent of a partial suspension of its federally granted certificate. The highways of Illinois are not only used by Hayes to transport interstate goods to and from that State but are also used as connecting links to points in other states which the Commission has authorized Hayes to serve. Consequently if the ninety-day or the one-year suspension should become effective, the carriage of interstate goods into Illinois and other states would be seriously disrupted.
That Illinois seeks to punish Hayes for violations of its road regulations does not justify this disruption of federally authorized activities. A state's regulation of weight and distribution of loads carried in interstate trucks does not itself conflict with the Federal Act. The reason for this as pointed out in Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598, 60 S.Ct. 726, 84 L.Ed. 969, is that the Federal Act has a provision designed to leave states free to regulate the sizes and weights of motor vehicles. But it would stretch this statutory provision too much to say that it also allowed states to revoke or suspend the right of interstate motor carriers for violation of state highway regulations.
It is urged that without power to impose punishment by suspension states will be without appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
...Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 296, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 1922, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971); Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61, 75 S.Ct. 191, 99 L.Ed. 68 (1954). See also Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association, supra, 458 U.S. at 153, 102 S.Ct. at 3022. But se......
-
Suburban Trails, Inc. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., Civ. A. No. 85-1398.
...(1967); Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 357 U.S. 77, 78 S.Ct. 1063, 2 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1958); Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, 348 U.S. 61, 75 S.Ct. 191, 99 L.Ed. 68 (1954); Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623 Other of the Court's decisions make clear, how......
-
Confederated Tribes of Colville v. State of Wash.
...Lime & Avocado Growers (maturity of avocados for marketing); Campbell (labeling of tobacco for marketing); Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, 348 U.S. 61, 75 S.Ct. 191, 99 L.Ed. 68 (1954), (licensing of common carrier); California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725, 69 S.Ct. 841, 93 L.Ed. 1005 (1949), (sale......
-
State ex rel. Andrus v. Click
...decisions which have invalidated direct state interference with the activities of interstate carriers, Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61, 75 S.Ct. 191, 99 L.Ed. 68, even in that field of paramount federal concern the suggestion has been significantly qualified, e. g., Huron P......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - April 2, 2012
...a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers' federal registration, in violation of Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Zamora, No. 10-796: The questions presented are (1) whether the policy against federal interference with......
-
Supreme Court Decision Alert - June 13, 2013
...posture of this case," the Court declined to rule on ATA's second argument—that, under Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954), the Port could not enforce other requirements of the concession agreement by revoking non-complying companies' right to operate at the Although he ......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - January 11, 2013
...under a "market participant" exception to the FAAAA's express-preemption provision and (2) whether Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954), which precludes municipalities from enforcing regulations that limit the operating authority of federally licensed motor carriers, proh......
-
Judicial Views On Tax Administration
...highways for repeated violation of motor carrier laws was held invalid in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, 348 U.S.61 (1954). 31 Ibid., 348 U.S. 61, 65.32 Compare, for example, the recitals of violations in State ex inf. Dalton v. Riss and Co., Inc., 335 S.W.2d 118 (1960) and Public Utilities......