Court Opinion

ID: 9420321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:53:57.061608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:24.071029
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom
Mr. Justice Black concurs, dissenting.
There are difficulties for me however the case is decided. But I have concluded that the fairer result is reached if the ambiguities and doubts, fully canvassed and disclosed in the Court’s opinions in this case and in Ex parte Collett, ante, p. 55, decided ■ this day, are resolved by reading § 1404 (a) as making the doctrine of jorum non conveniens applicable to any civil action as to which the venue provisions are codified in revised Title 28. That gives full effect to the words “any civil action” in the field in which Congress was legislating. And it authorizes, as respects that group of cases, a transfer to another district in lieu of outright dismissal as had previously obtained. That construction saves § 1404 (a), the venue ■provisions of the Clayton Act and our decision in United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 334 U. S. 573, from mutilation. I am reluctant to conclude that Congress took the more drastic course in a mere revision of the code. So to hold would make a basic change not only in *85the two statutes involved in these cases but in the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ .4, 5; the Jones-Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688; the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U. S. C. § 782; Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U. S. C. § 1128d; the Securities Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 77a, 77v; the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78a, 78aa; the Public Utility Holding Company -Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 79, 79y; the Investment Company Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 80a-l, 80a-43; and perhaps in other statutes too.