City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.
357 U.S. 77 · No. 103 · 1957 term · Warren Court
Decided Jun 16, 1958 · argued Mar 5, 1958
Federalism · National supremacy: public utilities
Struck down a local ordinance
Majority opinion: Hugo Black
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. City of Chicago lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
City of Chicago was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1957 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Hugo BlackWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasJoined the majority
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John HarlanWrote a dissent
Harold BurtonJoined a dissent
Felix FrankfurterJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- City of ChicagoCity, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit (Illinois)
- Respondent
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.Railroad
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A local ordinance, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 16, 1958DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. City of Chicago lost.
- Mar 5, 1958ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: public utilities, newest first.
- Hughes v. PPL Energyplus578 U.S. 150Apr 19, 2016 · 578 U.S. 150Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Central Virginia Community College, et al. v. Bernard Katz, Liquidating Supervisor for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc.546 U.S. 356Jan 23, 2006 · 546 U.S. 356Federalism5–45–4 band
- Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority et al.535 U.S. 743May 28, 2002 · 535 U.S. 743Federalism5–45–4 band
- Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Service Comm'n of Md.535 U.S. 635May 20, 2002 · 535 U.S. 635Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. et al.393 U.S. 129Nov 18, 1968 · 393 U.S. 129Federalism7–18–1 band
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma et al.357 U.S. 320Jun 23, 1958 · 357 U.S. 320Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission et al.341 U.S. 329May 14, 1951 · 341 U.S. 329Federalism7–27–2 band
- Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Carroll et al.338 U.S. 586Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 586Federalism7–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.