Canada Packers, Ltd. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Docket: 11

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; December 5, 1966; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalLead Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion OriginalDissent AnalysisDissent Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case addresses the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in determining the reasonableness of a joint through international freight rate. The American railroad respondents transported 131 cars of potash from New Mexico to Canada, charging the petitioner a joint through rate, which the petitioner later contested as unreasonable in a reparations proceeding before the ICC. The ICC found the rate unreasonable and ordered reparations for the difference between the charged rate and a reasonable rate at the time. Respondents contested part of the reparations, claiming it was for the Canadian portion of the trip, over which the ICC allegedly lacked jurisdiction.

The District Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, asserting that the ICC did not have jurisdiction over the Canadian segment and therefore could not mandate reparations for it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. The Court noted that the Interstate Commerce Act applies to international transport only to the extent that it occurs within the U.S. The Court of Appeals and the respondents argued that the ICC's jurisdiction was limited, a position that had merit initially.

However, the Court highlighted that the ICC's longstanding view, supported by prior Supreme Court rulings, allows the ICC to determine the reasonableness of joint through rates that include both domestic and international transport. Notably, previous cases such as News Syndicate Co. v. New York Central R. Co. established that the ICC does have jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of joint rates and order reparations. The Court found the distinctions drawn by the Court of Appeals and the respondents to be insubstantial and indicated that there had been no negative consequences from the ICC's interpretation of the statute. The Court concluded that it would not alter the established construction of the statute and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.