MUNN V ILLINOIS 94 U.S 113 1877 MUNN V ILLINOIS U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL BUSINESS/COMMERCE U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE DECIDED SOON AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THIS CASE REINFORCED THE RIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE LAWS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT BACKGROUND DURING THE 1870S MANY FARMERS FORMED ASSOCIATIONS SUCH AS THE NATIONAL GRANGE TO LOBBY FOR LAWS REGULATING GRAIN PRICES COSTS FOR RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION AND GRAIN STORAGE HAD BEEN RISING AND MANY FARMERS WERE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE A LIVING IN 1873 THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM RATES THAT GRAIN ELEVATOR OPERATORS COULD CHARGE IF THEY DID BUSINESS IN CHICAGO MUNN SCOTT A GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND FINED 100 IRA MUNN ARGUED THAT THE LAW UNFAIRLY LIMITED CONGRESS'S POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IN ADDITION THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LAW VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT ONLY APPLIED TO CHICAGO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS UPHELD THE CONVICTION MUNN APPEALED THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON JANUARY 14 AND JANUARY 18 1876 AND DECIDED ON MARCH 1 1877 BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2 CHIEF JUSTICE MORRISON WAITE SPOKE FOR THE COURT WHICH UPHELD THE ILLINOIS LAW JUSTICES STEPHEN FIELD AND WILLIAM STRONG DISSENTED WAITE ARGUED THAT THE LAW WAS WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE STATE BECAUSE PRIVATE BUSINESSES BECAME SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION WHEN THEY AFFECTED THE PUBLIC IN ADDITION HE MAINTAINED THAT IT WAS PROPER FOR THE JUDICIARY TO REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE LAWS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IF THE LAWS WERE FOUND VALID AS IN THIS CASE PEOPLE THEN HAD TO USE THEIR POWER TO VOTE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAW EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT RIGHTS OF PROPERTY WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE COMMON LAW CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BUT THE LAW ITSELF AS A RULE OF CONDUCT MAY BE CHANGED AT THE WILL OR EVEN AT THE WHIM OF THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS PREVENTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO LIMIT THE RATE OF CHARGE FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN A PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OR FOR THE USE OF PROPERTY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS AN INTEREST IS ONLY CHANGING A REGULATION WHICH EXISTED BEFORE IT ESTABLISHES NO NEW PRINCIPLE IN THE LAW BUT ONLY GIVES A NEW EFFECT TO AN OLD ONE WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A POWER WHICH MAY BE ABUSED BUT THAT IS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST ITS EXISTENCE FOR PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSES BY LEGISLATURES THE PEOPLE MUST RESORT TO THE POLLS NOT TO THE COURTS
