Supreme Court of the United States, 1919

Kansas v. Burleson

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 2, 1919 · Cheep, White, Brandéis

250 U.S. 188; 39 S. Ct. 512; 63 L. Ed. 926; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1730 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Fred S. Jackson, with whom Mr. Richard J. Hopkins, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, and Mr. A. E. Helm were on the brief, for plaintiff:, Mr. John G. Price,' Attorney General ..of the State of Ohio, by leave of court, filed a brief on behalf of the State of Ohio, as amicus curios.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Authority of the President Under Domestic and International Law to Use Military Force Against Iraq (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2002)
State ex rel. Cities of Seattle & Tacoma v. Public Service Commission (Wash. 1920)
State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Minn. 1919)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*190 Mr. Cheep Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The State of Kansas, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court, filed its bill to enjoin the Postmaster General from enforcing and the defendant corporation from giving effect to a schedule of telephone rates which the Postmaster General had established and which he had directed should be applied for telephone services rendered on lines which were in the control and possession of the United States and were being'operated as governmental agencies in virtue of the resolution of Congress and the proclamation of the President referred to and considered in Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, just announced, ante, 163.

The defendants insisting that the suit was not in substance against an officer to restrain the doing of unauthorized acts, but was really one to prevent an official of the United States from discharging his duty under a law of the United States, both disputed the merits and challenged the jurisdiction. The case was heard coincidentally with the Dakota Central Telephone Case, this day decided. As the ruling in that case establishes the want of foundation for the contention made in this, as to the illegality of the acts of the officer complained of, it follows also that what was stated in that case as to the form of our decree is likewise here controlling, and for the reasons there stated in this as in that case our decree must be and is one of dismissal of the bill.

And it is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Brandéis dissents.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.