Chelsea Gadoury
Munn v. Illinois (1877)
Opinion of the court: Waite
Dissenting Opinion: Field
Background: Chicago was headquarters for the majority of grain in the Midwest. Grain
production was booming and Chicago was the home of many grain warehouses that farmers
used to store the grain. Grain storage was a lucrative business, Ira Y. Munn and George L. Scott
ran one of the biggest storage companies in Chicago. Munn and Scott began to engage in
fraudulent business practices such as, price fixing with other storage companies and mixing
inferior grain with high quality grain. The price of grain was outrageous and farmers began to
complain to state officials to halt the price fixing. The Illinois responded by passing a bill that
set a maximum price for grain and regulated the business. Munn and Scott were fined a hundred
dollar for violation the new laws. They appealed the charges claiming that the state did not have
the authority to regulate prices because it inferred with the fourteenth amendment.
Outcome: The court ruled that the law did not interfere with the fourteenth amendment. The
state legislature was not in error.
Majority: Justice Waite stated that the fourteenth amendment protection of property provision
did not apply to the regulation of grain prices. The storage company was not considered private
property because it was exposed to the public domain. Since they are used by the public domain,
they are allowed to be regulated by the public.
Dissent: Justice Field stated that the law infringed on the freedom provision of the fourteenth
amendment. The government should not be able to regulate the sale of private property or
services. The storage service was not public domain; it does not affect the public and is a private
service.
Discussion: Munn and Scott were abusing their privileges and engaging in many illegal
practices. Since the public was paying for a service, I agree with the majority. If public is
involved and dependent of their services they should be able to regulate impose regulations.