United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association
{{Primary sources|date=November 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association
|ArgueDateA=December 8
|ArgueDateB=9
|ArgueYear=1896
|DecideDate=March 22
|DecideYear=1897
|FullName=United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association
|USVol=166
|USPage=290
|ParallelCitations=17 S. Ct. 540; 41 L. Ed. 1007; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2025
|Prior=53 F. 440 (C.C.D. Kan. 1892); affirmed, 58 F. 58 (8th Cir. 1893).
|Subsequent=
|Holding=
|Majority=Peckham
|JoinMajority=Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown
|Dissent=White
|JoinDissent=Field, Gray, Shiras
|LawsApplied=Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
}}
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act (which was an antitrust measure that prohibited anticompetitive behavior in commerce) applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, {{ussc|volume=166|page=290|year=1897}}.
Background
Various railroad companies had formed an organization to regulate prices charged for transportation. The federal government charged these companies with violating the Sherman Act, and the railroad companies replied that they were not in violation of the act because their organization was designed to keep prices low, not to push them higher. The companies also contended that Congress had not intended the Sherman Act to apply to them, because there were already a wide array of laws governing the railroads.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court held that the Sherman Act prohibited all such combinations, irrespective of the purpose. The railroad association was price fixing under the per se approach. Competition should determine the reasonable rate, not agreements between companies.{{Cite journal |last=Tally |first=J. O. |title=The Supreme Court, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Freight Rate Battle |url=https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1704&context=nclr |journal=North Carolina Law Review |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=189}} The court further held that congressional debate could not be used to decipher legislative intent due to the complex and often varying opinions on what the act means for different legislators{{Cite journal |last1=Landry |first1=Michael |last2=Stone |title=The Trans-Missouri Case: Does the Sherman Act Apply to Railroads? |url=https://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/ebhs/article/view/113/94 |journal=Essays in Economic & Business History |date=2003 |volume=21 |pages=132–133}}
{{Expand section|date=April 2013}}
See also
{{Slist rule of reason}}
References
{{Reflist}}
External links
- {{wikisource-inline}}
- {{caselaw source
| case = United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, {{ussc|166|290|1897|el=no}}
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/us/166/290/case.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep166/usrep166290/usrep166290.pdf
}}
{{United States antitrust law|state=collapsed}}
Category:1897 in United States case law
Category:United States antitrust case law
Category:United States Supreme Court cases
Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court
{{SCOTUS-Fuller-stub}}