Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co, 382 U.S. 281, 86 S.Ct. 423, 15 L.Ed.2d 324 (1965)
• Decision Date: 13 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 375,375
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO

382 U.S. 281

86 S.Ct. 423

15 L.Ed.2d 324

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

v The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.

No. 375.

Dec. 13, 1965.

William A. Goichman and Joseph C. Bruno, for appellant.

Hugh B. Cox and Windsor F. Cousins, for appellee.

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- 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, 382 U.S. 111, 86 S.Ct. 258, 15 L.Ed.2d 194, 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.' International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co., 304 U.S. 243, 250, 58 S.Ct. 875, 879, 82 L.Ed. 1316.

Because a three-judge court was not required to adjudicate this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C....