Railway Express Agency v. New York

Brief Fact Summary.

The New York City Traffic Regulations prohibits anyone from operating on any street an advertising vehicle. The petitioner is engaged in a nationwide express business and operates 1900 trucks in New York City and sells components of trucks for advertising. The petitioner was convicted.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The Equal Protection Clause does not demand that all evils of the same category be eradicated.

Facts.

The New York City Traffic Regulations prohibits anyone from operating on any street an advertising vehicle. The petitioneris engaged in a nationwide express business and operates 1900 trucks in New York City and sells components of trucks for advertising. The petitioner was convicted. The state court concluded that advertising on vehicles constitutes a distraction to vehicle drivers and to pedestrians equally and thus affects the safety of the public in the use of the streets.

Issue.

Does the New York City Traffic Regulations that prohibits anyone from operating on any street an advertising vehicle violate the Constitution?

Held.

No, the New York City Traffic Regulations that prohibits anyone from operating on any street an advertising vehicle does not violate the Constitution because the regulations do not contain the kind of discrimination against which equal protection affords protection.

Concurrence.

Justice Jackson

Governments must exercise their powers so as not to discriminate between their inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. The City, however, only seeks to reduce the traffic hazard by saying that while some may, others may not exhibit such appeals. The equal protection clause ceases to assure equality and protection if it is avoided by any conceivable difference that can be pointed out between those bound and those left free.

Discussion.

New York City passed and enacted the Traffic Regulations based on practical considerations and experience rather than by theoretical inconsistencies that the question of equal protection is to be answered. The respondent’s argument that New York City sees fit to be even greater ones in different category, such as the vivid displays on Times Square, is immaterial. The Equal Protection does not require that all evils of the game genus be eliminated.