Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1949

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York

336 U.S. 106 | 69 S. Ct. 463 | 93 L. Ed. 2d 533 | 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2800 | 93 L. Ed. 533

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case applies deferential rational-basis review to uphold a local traffic rule that banned advertising for hire on vehicles while allowing businesses to advertise themselves on their own working trucks.

Background

New York City Traffic Regulation § 124 prohibited “advertising vehicles” on city streets. It exempted business notices on a company’s own delivery vehicles when those vehicles were engaged in the owner’s regular business and were not used mainly for advertising.

Railway Express Agency operated about 1,900 trucks in New York City as part of its nationwide express business. It sold advertising space on the sides of its trucks, chiefly for advertisements unrelated to its own delivery business. The company was convicted and fined in a magistrate’s court. The Court of Special Sessions sustained the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed without an opinion by a divided vote.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the traffic regulation violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its ban on advertising vehicles was not sufficiently related to traffic safety.

Holding

No. The regulation had a permissible relation to New York City’s traffic-safety concerns.

Reasoning

The Court accepted the local court’s conclusion that advertising on moving vehicles could distract drivers and pedestrians and thereby affect the safe use of city streets. Traffic regulation is an especially local and specialized municipal function, so the Court would not independently weigh the evidence or second-guess the ordinance’s wisdom.

Although an earlier case had upheld a predecessor ordinance enacted under the city’s general police power, while this regulation was issued as a traffic rule, the Court found that difference immaterial. Nothing showed that the city’s judgment that vehicular advertising affects traffic was palpably false.

Issue #2

Whether the regulation denied equal protection by allowing businesses to advertise their own products or services on their own delivery trucks while prohibiting Railway Express from carrying advertisements for others.

Holding

No. The distinction between a business’s own advertising and general advertising for hire was an allowable classification rationally related to the traffic objective.

Reasoning

Railway Express argued that the very same advertisement could distract traffic equally whether it appeared on the advertiser’s own truck or on Railway Express’s truck. But the Court treated that comparison as too theoretical. Local authorities could reasonably conclude, based on practical experience, that businesses advertising their own wares on working delivery vehicles used advertising less extensively or in a manner that posed a lesser traffic problem than a company selling mobile advertising space.

Equal protection does not require a city to eliminate every comparable distraction at once. New York could address the particular problem it identified—commercial advertising vehicles—without also regulating other attention-grabbing displays, including the vivid signage in Times Square.

Issue #3

Whether the regulation impermissibly burdened interstate commerce because some of Railway Express’s trucks delivered goods from New Jersey into New York.

Holding

No. The local traffic regulation was a permissible exercise of municipal authority over streets and highways.

Reasoning

Where a local rule concerns traffic control and highway use, and no conflicting federal regulation exists, state and local authorities have substantial leeway even if the rule materially affects interstate commerce. Because the regulation governed the use of New York City streets and did not conflict with federal law, prior highway-regulation cases controlled and supported the ordinance.

Concurrences

Justice Rutledge

Reasoning

Justice Rutledge acquiesced in the Court’s opinion and judgment but expressed doubt about the equal-protection question. He did not provide a separate explanation for that reservation.

Justice Jackson

Reasoning

Justice Jackson agreed that the conviction should be affirmed, but he emphasized a different constitutional perspective. In his view, courts should be highly reluctant to use substantive due process to invalidate local regulations, because doing so can prevent every level of government from addressing conduct that local communities regard as harmful. Equal protection, by contrast, does not disable regulation; it requires government to regulate evenhandedly or to justify meaningful distinctions.

Jackson viewed equal protection as a practical safeguard against arbitrary government. A rule imposed only on a politically weak minority is more likely to be arbitrary because officials can avoid the political costs that would accompany a generally applicable rule. New York’s ordinance illustrated this concern: a complete ban on vehicle advertising might affect powerful interests, including newspapers that advertise on their vehicles, while the narrower rule burdened only selected advertisers.

Jackson nevertheless found a sufficient distinction between advertising for hire and a business’s use of its own vehicle to promote itself. Although the advertisements may create comparable traffic distractions, the city could treat commercial use of public streets as an advertising business differently from incidental self-advertising by a business already using its trucks for its own work. Longstanding highway cases recognized that use of streets for private gain may be prohibited or conditioned differently from ordinary self-use, and that principle led him to uphold the regulation.