Case Name: UNITED STATES et al. v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-11-14
Citations: 338 U.S. 286
Docket Number: NO. 40
Parties: UNITED STATES et al. v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY et al.
Judges: Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 338
Pages: 286–293

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES et al. v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY et al.
NO. 40.
Argued October 20-21, 1949.
Decided November 14, 1949.
Philip Elman argued the cause for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellants in No. 40. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Bergson, Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., William J. Hickey, Richard E. Guggenheim, Daniel W. Knowlton and Edward M. Reidy.
Manuel J. Davis argued the cause for the Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., and S. Harrison Kahn argued the cause for the Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Co., and filed a brief for those appellants in No. 41.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr. argued the cause and filed a brief for the Capital Transit Co., appellee in Nos. 40 and 41. With him on the brief were Edmund L. Jones, F. G. Await and Daryal A. Myse.
Lloyd B. Harrison argued the cause for the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, appellee in Nos. 40 and 41. With him on the brief was Vernon E. West.
By special leave of Court Henry E. Ketner argued the cause and filed a brief for the State Corporation Commission of Virginia et al., as amici curiae, urging affirmance.
John O’Dea filed a brief as People’s Counsel, Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, appellee in No. 40.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In United States v. Capital Transit Co., 325 U. S. 357, we upheld the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate certain of Capital Transit's bus and streetcar rates. The rates involved were in two different categories. Transit operated, as it still does, a bus and streetcar system within the District connecting the residential area with the central business area. It was also one of four bus companies carrying passengers from that central business area to the Pentagon Building and other Defense establishments located just across the Potomac in Virginia. Each day thousands of Government employees living in the District boarded Transit's streetcars near their residences, rode to the District's business area, and there transferred to one of the Virginia busses for carriage to the nearby Virginia establishments. In the above case we sustained a Commission order fixing a through fare for the entire trip between the District residential area and the Virginia governmental installations. Transit had strongly urged that its bus and streetcar transportation between residential and business areas, being wholly within the District, could not be treated as part of an interstate movement. For reasons stated in our former opinion we rejected Transit's contention, holding that the daily stream of Government workers from the District to Virginia and back again was an interstate movement and therefore subject to regulation by the Commission. This holding applied to Transit carriage even where Transit passengers traveled between the District and Virginia on other bus lines. Transit also contended that jurisdiction of the Commission was precluded by a proviso in §216 (e) of the Motor Carrier Act exempting "intrastate transportation" of motor carriers from regulation by the Commission. This contention was repeated on motion for rehearing. We rejected it. Our holding that Transit's part of the District-Virginia movements was "interstate transportation" necessarily-made the § 216 (e) exemption inapplicable.
After our holding the Commission entered a new order putting into effect the rate order we had sustained. In the present cases, here on appeal from a three-judge District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 and 2101 (b), the new order was enjoined on the ground that Transit's transportation, which we had held to be interstate, had now become "intrastate." On the same ground, that court also held that Transit was exempt from Commission jurisdiction under the proviso in § 216 (e). The District Court also cited to support its ruling our recent decision in United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U. S. 218.
The District Court apparently took the position that changed conditions since our decision in the prior Transit case had deprived the Commission of its jurisdiction. When we sustained the Commission's order in that case, Transit was itself operating one of the four bus lines carrying Government workers from the District central business area to Virginia. It issued transfers to passengers on its busses and streetcars between the District business and residential areas. These transfers were good for rides on Transit's own District-Virginia busses, but Transit would not give transfers good on the three competitive lines. We adverted to and relied on this situation as one of the reasons supporting the Commission's requirement that Transit make similar arrangements for through fares with the other lines. April 1, 1947, Transit abandoned its District-Virginia bus line. Because of this the District Court held that since that date all of Transit's carriage of Virginia-bound passengers has been "intrastate transportation."
The District. Court's annulment of the Commission's order on the above ground cannot stand. Our previous holding was that all of Transit's intra-District carriage of passengers bound to and from the Virginia establishments was part of an "interstate" movement and therefore subject to Commission regulation throughout, upon proper Commission findings. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, does not conflict with our prior holding that Transit's transportation was part of a continuous stream of interstate transportation. We adhere to that holding. Transit's intra-District streetcar and bus transportation of passengers going to and from the Virginia establishments is an integral part of an interstate movement.
In support of the District Court's judgment it is urged that there was no substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings that its exercise of jurisdiction was necessary to a national transportation system "adequate to meet the needs of . . . the national defense." The argument seems to be that the Commission should have altered this finding made in the prior proceedings because the nation is no longer at war. Another factor pointed out is that there are now fewer Army and Navy workers who work in the Virginia installations. Neither of these arguments is sufficient to justify setting aside findings made by the Commission on this point. The evidence before the Commission in the two proceedings indicates that the same reasons exist for Commission action now as before. And despite attempted interference with the Commission's power by the Public Utilities Commission of the District, it is still true that neither the District nor Virginia has adequate power to regulate the through rates for this daily stream of interstate travel.
It is also argued here that the orders should be set aside because they are confiscatory. But the record fails to show that this issue was properly presented to the Commission for its determination. Therefore the question of confiscation is not ripe for judicial review.
We have examined other contentions urged in support of the District Court's judgments and find that all are without merit.
The judgments of the District Court in these cases are reversed and the causes are remanded to it with directions to dismiss these actions.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The District Court simultaneously enjoined enforcement of two subsequent related Commission orders. One order declined to permit cancellation of the prescribed through rates and schedules. 47 M. C. C. 205. The other increased the former prescribed maximum rates and provided for divisions of through fares among the companies carrying the District-Virginia passengers. 270 I. C. C. 651.