Court Opinion

ID: 9420403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:54:19.712252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:24.862145
License: Public Domain

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Jackson
dissenting.
The opinion in our view bases the judgment on a holding “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.” Since the Court does not rest the applicability of the Motor Carrier Act, 49 Stat. 543, to the Capital Transit Company on the existence of Transit’s lines to Maryland, we, too, lay that problem aside. We understand the Court to assert that the statute empowers the Commission to enter the contested order whether or not Transit operates admitted interstate routes.
The present case differs from the former case involving the operations of the Transit Company. 325 U. S. 357. In the earlier case Transit served Virginia areas in com*292petition with other interstate operators of busses. As the operator of interstate routes selling through tickets on its own lines, Transit .was required also to sell and accept through tickets that were good for passage on other interstate lines. Such obligation was imposed by § 216 (e), the section prohibiting anything “unduly preferential or unduly prejudicial,” and § 216 (c), the section regulating charges for voluntary through rates. 325 U. S. at 362.
Now Transit does not operate the interstate routes to the Virginia points. It is not an interstate carrier over the route for which it now is required to sell through tickets. Therefore, the Court’s opinion finds it necessary to rely upon the stream of passengers between the District and Virginia to put Transit under the Motor Carrier Act as engaged in interstate commerce so far as it transports, in the District, passengers with an ultimate out-of-state destination. We do not believe the Act permits such a construction.
Clearly the Act is limited to operations in interstate commerce.1 Congress has not used the full extent of its commerce power to reach incidents affecting interstate transportation. It has emphasized a contrary intention by providing for the exclusion from the coverage of the Act, in certain situations, of interstate passenger traffic in a municipality, contiguous municipalities or adjacent zones. § 203 (b) (8). Likewise the Act specifically bars the Commission from regulating intrastate transportation *293on the ground that it affects interstate transportation.2 Since the Motor Carrier Act does not regulate carrier activities that merely affect interstate commerce, we think the stream of commerce theory inapplicable.3 We cannot agree that intrastate carriage of passengers who have an intention to continue their journey across state lines by way of another and wholly unconnected company makes the first carrier a company engaged in interstate commerce under the Motor Carrier Act as to that transportation.
The Court’s decision may have unfortunate results. Its unlimited language sweeps into the hands of the Commission the regulation of all local transportation that carries a large proportion of passengers destined for or arriving from out-of-state points. For example, the Court’s ruling would seem to include the New York City commuter traffic moving by local bus, subway and streetcar service on its way to and from interstate busses.

 “Sec. 202. (b) The provisions of this part apply to the transportation of passengers or property by motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and to the procurement of and the provision of facilities for such transportation, and the regulation of such transportation, and of the procurement thereof, and the provision of facilities therefor, is hereby vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission.”

 “That nothing in this part shall empower the Commission to prescribe, or in any manner regulate, the rate, fare, or charge for intrastate transportation, or for any service connected therewith, for the purpose of removing discrimination against interstate commerce or for any other purpose whatever.” § 216 (e).

 See McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U. S. 491; Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U. S. 1; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495.