Court Opinion

ID: 9425366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:32.035153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:55.182720
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring in the affirmance of the remand to the Commission and dissenting from the reversal of the decree authorizing the injunction.
Though I concur in the affirmance of the remand to the Interstate Commerce Commission, I dissent from the reversal of the decree authorizing the injunction, since in my view the District Court was quite correct in issuing its injunction. Arrow Transportation Co. v. *827Southern R. Co., 372 U. S. 658, is not relevant here, for the reason that 49 U. S. C. § 15 (7) only purports to control the suspension of rates up until the time the Commission has rendered a decision. After that decision has been made, the reviewing court has, I believe, the power to enjoin the affected rates. The new charges which the Commission would impose would have an immediate impact upon the grain-marketing system. It would affect the volume of business of the grain merchants, it would affect the employment of grain inspectors, and it would result in lower prices being paid to the farmers. None of these incidences can be remedied under the existing statutory scheme, because none of these interests is enabled to bring suit for a later rate refund. Hence, in my view, the grain trade and the farmers need this interim protection lest in inspection the marketing system suffer severe attrition during the period of remand. The deciding principle is that the District Court sits as a court of equity, United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183, 191, and as a court of equity has, I believe, ample power to protect the grain market nationally which would otherwise be without remedy under the existing statutory regime.
Jurisdiction is granted the District Court “to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend” any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a). For years, the type of order here involved* was not reviewable. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282. But that “negative” order concept was abandoned in Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 145. The provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a), are an explicit grant of power to *828provide injunctive relief. Under that Act the “governing principle” is “that it is the duty of a court of equity granting injunctive relief to do so upon conditions that will protect all — including the public — whose interests the injunction may affect.” Inland Steel Co. v. United States, 306 U. S. 153, 157. That power exists whether the Commission’s authority over rates is challenged under 49 U. S. C. § 15 (1) as being unjust or unreasonable or under 49 U. S. C. § 15 (7) relating, as here, to “a new individual or joint rate, fare, or charge.” In all cases the District Court by reason of 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a) sits as a court of equity.

The order of Division 2 of the Commission provided that the proceeding “be, and it is hereby, discontinued.” 339 I. C. C. 364, 401. The order of the Commission en banc affirming is in 340 I. C. C. 69, 74.