Facts of the case:
The case arose when the Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes on its fences under a new California state law that denied railroads the right to deduct their debts from the taxable value of their property. The railroads challenged this law, arguing that it conflicted with a federal statute that gave them certain privileges
Significance:
The case is most notable for a headnote written by the Reporter of Decisions, which stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations. This marked the first time the Supreme Court indicated that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations as well as natural persons
Judgement:
A unanimous decision by Justice Harlan ruled that California had illegally included the fences alongside the tracks in the total property value assessment of the Southern Pacific Railroad. As a result, the county could not collect taxes on these fences, meaning the larger issue of the Equal Protection Clause was never addressed.
The defendants argued that their railroad was part of a continuous postal and military route, maintained partly with federal funds, making the company an instrument of the federal government, and thus exempt from state taxation without federal consent. They also contended that California’s tax assessment laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing unequal tax burdens and failing to account for mortgage values, and that the law authorizing the assessment was not constitutionally enacted.
The Circuit Court overruled some of these defenses but found the tax assessment law unconstitutional. The broader questions of constitutional law were significant but not essential to the decision, as the assessment’s validity hinged on whether the State Board of Equalization had the jurisdiction to assess the included properties, specifically the fences. Since the fences were improperly assessed by the state rather than the counties, the entire assessment was void, negating the need to address the constitutional questions.
Justice Field’s and the Circuit Judge’s opinions, discussed extensively in Santa Clara Railroad Tax Case, 18 F. 385, highlighted that the board had no jurisdiction to assess the fences, which should have been assessed by county officers. As a result, the invalid inclusion of these properties voided the entire assessment, justifying the judgment against the defendant without needing to resolve the broader constitutional issues.
About the Author
