# The Employers'liability Cases

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 6, 1908 · 207 U.S. 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418105

## Case

- **Full name:** The Employers’ Liability Cases
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 6, 1908
- **Citations:** 207 U.S. 463; 28 S. Ct. 141; 52 L. Ed. 297; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1412
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Holmes
- **Judges:** Holmes, White, Peckham, Moody, Harlan, Day
- **Cited by:** 294 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418105

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding unconstitutional jurisdictional provision in Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) covering the employees of "every common carrier engaged in trade or commerce"

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Holmes,
dissenting.
I must admit that I think there are strong reasons in favor of the interpretation of the statute adopted by a majority of the court. But, as it is possible to read the words in such a way' as to save the constitutionality of the act, I think' they should be taken in that narrower sense. The phrase “every common carrier engaged in trade or commerce” may be construed to mean “while engaged in trade or commerce” without violence to the habits of English speech, and to govern all that follows. The statute then will regulate all common carriers while so engaged in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, thus covering the whole ground as to them; and it will regulate carriers elsewhere while engaged in commerce between the States, etc., thus limiting its scope where it is necessary to limit it. So construed I think the act valid in its main features under the Constitution of the United Statés. In view of the circumstances I do not'discuss details.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418105. Public record. Not legal advice.