El Paso & Northeastern Railway Co. v. Gutierrez
Citations
- 215 U.S. 87
- 30 S. Ct. 21
- 54 L. Ed. 106
- 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1735
Syllabus
<p>Where the effect of the judgment of the state court is to deny the defense that a statute of a Territory is a bar to the action, a claim of Federal right is denied and this court has jurisdiction under § 709, Rev. Stats., to review the judgment. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55.</p> <p>The power of Congress to regulad commerce in the District of Columbia and Territories is plenary and does not depend on the commerce clause, and a statute regulating such commerce necessarily supersedes a territorial statute on the same subject.</p> <p>An act of Congress may be unconstitutional as measured by the commerce clause, and constitutional as measured by the power to govern the District of Columbia and the Territories, and the test of separability is whether Congress would have enacted, the legislation exclusively for the District and the Territories.</p> <p>The rule that the court must sustain an act of Congress as constitutional unless there is no doubt as to its unconstitutionality also requires the ■ court to sustain the act in so far as it is possible to sustain it.</p> <p>This court did not in its decision of the Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, hold the act of June 11, 1906, c. 3073, 34 Stat. 232, unconstitutional so far as it related to the District of Columbia and the Territories, and expressly refused to interpret the act -as applying only to such employés of carriers in the District and Territories as were engaged in interstate commerce.</p> <p>The evident intent of Congress in enacting the Employers’ Liability ’ Act of June 11, 1906, was to enact the curative provisions of the law as applicable to the District of Columbia and the Territories under its plenary power irrespective of the interstate commerce feature of the act, and although unconstitutional as to the latter as held in 207 U. S. 463, it is constitutional and paramount as to commerce wholly in the District and Territories.</p> <p>The Employers’ Liability Act of June 1
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- under Congress' plenary authority over territories, Federal Employers’ Liability Act applies to the Territory of New Mexico despite unconstitutionality of FELA with regard to the states
- “[W]henever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of [a] court to so declare . . . .” (emphasis added)
- “It is hardly necessary to repeat what this court has often affirmed, that an act of Congress is not to be declared invalid except for reasons so clear and satisfactory as to leave no doubt of its unconstitutionality.”
- “It is hardly necessary to repeat what this court has often affirmed, that an act of Congress is not to be declared invalid except for reasons so clear and satisfactory as to leave no doubt of its unconstitutionality.”
- “It is hardly necessary to repeat what this court has often affirmed, that an act of Congress is not to be declared invalid except for reasons so clear and satisfactory as to leave no doubt of its unconstitutionality.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.