Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner, Sheriff
376 U.S. 369 · No. 329 · 1963 term · Warren Court
Decided Mar 23, 1964 · argued Mar 4, 1964
Federalism · National supremacy: state tax
Majority opinion: Hugo Black
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Humble Pipe Line Co. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Louisiana appellate court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Humble Pipe Line Co. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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 1963 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Hugo BlackWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasJoined the majority
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
Arthur GoldbergJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Tom ClarkJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
John HarlanJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
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
- Humble Pipe Line Co.Pipe line company
- Respondent
- Waggonner, SheriffState (Louisiana)
- 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 I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 (governance of the District of Columbia and lands purchased from the states)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
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.
- Mar 23, 1964DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Humble Pipe Line Co. won.
- Mar 4, 1964ArguedArgued · 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 Louisiana appellate court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Louisiana trial 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
12 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: state tax, newest first.
- Dawson v. Steager139 S. Ct. 698Feb 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 698Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- J. Elliott Hibbs, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue v. Kathleen M. Winn et al.542 U.S. 88Jun 14, 2004 · 542 U.S. 88Federalism5–45–4 band
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Company, Inc.526 U.S. 32Mar 2, 1999 · 526 U.S. 32Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia et al.501 U.S. 529Jun 20, 1991 · 501 U.S. 529Federalism6–36–3 band
- Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury489 U.S. 803Mar 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 803Federalism8–18–1 band
- United States Steel Corp. et al. v. Multistate Tax Commission et al.434 U.S. 452Feb 21, 1978 · 434 U.S. 452Federalism7–27–2 band
- United States et al. v. County of Fresno429 U.S. 452Jan 25, 1977 · 429 U.S. 452Federalism8–18–1 band
- United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi et al.412 U.S. 363Jun 4, 1973 · 412 U.S. 363Federalism7–27–2 band
- Sullivan, Tax Commissioner of Connecticut, et al. v. United States et al.395 U.S. 169May 26, 1969 · 395 U.S. 169Federalism8–0Unanimous band
- Department of Revenue v. James B. Beam Distilling Co.377 U.S. 341Jun 1, 1964 · 377 U.S. 341Federalism6–27–2 band
- Michigan National Bank et al. v. Michigan et al.365 U.S. 467Mar 6, 1961 · 365 U.S. 467Federalism6–27–2 band
- Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District361 U.S. 376Feb 23, 1960 · 361 U.S. 376Federalism9–0Unanimous 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.