{}

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 346
U.S. 402 


NO. 87.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12-13, 1953 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 30, 1953 - 109
F. SUPP. 13, REVERSED. 


THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS REVERSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N V. WYCOFF CO., 344 U.S. 237. 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. UNITED AIR LINES,
INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  UNITED AIR LINES V.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 109 F. SUPP. 13.  THE JUDGMENT
IS REVERSED ON AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. WYCOFF CO.,
344 U.S. 237.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THE CASE SEEMS TO ME TO BE PECULIARLY ONE FOR RELIEF BY DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER CALIFORNIA OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE RATES WHICH UNITED AIR LINES CHARGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN POINTS ON THE MAINLAND OF CALIFORNIA AND
CATALINA ISLAND.  CATALINA ISLAND IS PART OF CALIFORNIA.  THEREFORE,
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CLAIMS JURISDICTION.  BUT
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT (52 STAT. 973, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401 ET SEQ.)
GIVES THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD AUTHORITY OVER RATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION "BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME STATE OF THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH THE AIR SPACE OVER ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  UNITED AIR
LINES AND THE BOARD BOTH CLAIM THAT FLIGHTS FROM THE MAINLAND TO
CATALINA (WHICH IS 30 MILES FROM THE MAINLAND) ARE OVER THE "HIGH SEAS"
AND THEREFORE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.  THAT WAS
THE VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  109 F. SUPP. 13.  WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT
OR WRONG IS THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR DECISION. 

THE CONTROVERSY IS REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL, FOR THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED UNITED TO FILE TARIFFS, CLAIMING UNEQUIVOCALLY
JURISDICTION OVER THE RATES TO AND FROM CATALINA. 

THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY REQUIRING UNITED TO GO THROUGH THE
LONG, LABORIOUS, EXPENSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION, ONLY TO WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE HIERARCHY OF
COURTS UP AGAIN TO THIS COURT SO THAT WE MAY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THESE RATES. 
FINDINGS THAT A LOCAL AGENCY MAY MAKE WILL SOMETIMES AID IN REDUCING
FRICTION BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY EXPOSING FACTS
WHICH INDICATE THAT THE STATE HAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN IN A COMPLEX
SITUATION WHERE LOCAL AND INTERSTATE INTERESTS ARE INTERTWINED.  NO
SUCH SITUATION IS PRESENTED HERE.  IT WOULD, I ASSUME, BE CONCEDED THAT
THE QUESTION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE "HIGH SEAS" IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  THE RESOLUTION OF THAT QUESTION WILL IN NO MANNER BE
ADVANCED BY REMITTING UNITED TO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE A
COMMISSION WHICH - IF THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW IS CORRECT - HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO ACT. 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201, WHICH OPERATES
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE "CASE" AND "CONTROVERSY" STANDARDS OF THE
CONSTITUTION (SEE AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227), SERVES
MANY FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH OTHER REMEDIES WERE UNSUITED OR WHICH THEY
PERFORMED "RATHER CLUMSILY" OR "INADEQUATELY," TO USE THE WORDS OF THE
HOUSE REPORT.  H.R. REP. NO. 1264, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  IT WAS,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, "INTENDED TO SAVE TEDIOUS AND COSTLY LITIGATION BY
ASCERTAINING AT THE OUTSET THE CONTROLLING FACT OR LAW INVOLVED, THUS
EITHER CONCLUDING THE LITIGATION OR THEREAFTER CONFINING IT WITHIN MORE
PRECISE LIMITATIONS."  ID., P. 2.  AND THE SENATE REPORT NOTED THAT ONE
OF THE FUNCTIONS SERVED BY THIS FORM OF RELIEF IS "THE DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS CONTESTED UNDER A STATUTE OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, WHERE IT WAS
NOT POSSIBLE OR NECESSARY TO OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION."  S. REP. NO. 1005,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  ANOTHER IS THE ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES
"WITHOUT REQUIRING A DESTRUCTION OF THE STATUS QUO."  ID., P. 6. 

OF COURSE THE RIGHT TO AN ADJUDICATION BY WAY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF
IS NOT A RIGHT THAT LITIGANTS CAN DEMAND.  ITS ALLOWANCE DEPENDS ON A
WISE DISCRETION.  BUT UNLESS WE ARE TO BE INTOLERANT OF THIS PROCEDURE
WHICH CONGRESS CREATED, WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO OVERRULE A DISTRICT
COURT WHEN IT CONCLUDES THAT THE CONTROVERSY IS REAL AND THE PERIL AND
INSECURITY IMMINENT, AND THAT TIME AND EXPENSE CAN BE SAVED AND GOOD
RELATIONS PROMOTED BY RESOLVING THE DISPUTE AT ITS INCEPTION RATHER
THAN WHEN ALL SIDES ARE EXHAUSTED AT THE END OF A LONG-DRAWN-OUT
LITIGATION. 

DECLARATORY RELIEF IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE IN CASE OF A
JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSY WHICH CAN BE SETTLED BY A RULING OF LAW. 
SEE ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. SWAN, 329 U.S. 520.  THERE IS THAT KIND OF
JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSY HERE, FOR A FEDERAL AGENCY CLAIMS THAT A
STATE COMMISSION MAY NOT ACT BECAUSE CONGRESS PUT THE MATTER
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE FEDERAL DOMAIN.  IN A CASE LESS CLEAR THAN THIS WE
ENJOINED STATE PROCEEDINGS AFTER CONCLUDING THAT CONGRESS HAD PRE
EMPTED THE FIELD.  RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., 331 U.S. 218.  BY
THE SAME TOKEN WE SHOULD SETTLE THIS CONTROVERSY AT THIS EARLY STAGE. 
BY DENYING RELIEF WE ADVANCE NO CAUSE EXCEPT THAT OF LITIGATION.