Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Liverpool, New York And Philadelphia Steamship Company v. Commissioners Of Emigration

• 1884 • 113 U.S. 33 • Waite Court
This case was a dispute between the Liverpool, New York and Philadelphia Steamship Company and the Commissioners of Emigration. The company had been transporting passengers from Europe to the United States, and the Commissioners had imposed a fee on the company for each passenger. The company argued that the fee was unconstitutional, as it was a tax on immigration and thus a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the company, ruling that the fee was...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1884
Docket: 19
113 U.S. 33
5 S. Ct. 352
28 L. Ed. 899
1885 U.S. LEXIS 1648
Argued: Mar 24, 1884

Liverpool, New York And Philadelphia Steamship Company v. Commissioners Of Emigration

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

This case was a dispute between the Liverpool, New York and Philadelphia Steamship Company and the Commissioners of Emigration. The company had been transporting passengers from Europe to the United States, and the Commissioners had imposed a fee on the company for each passenger. The company argued that the fee was unconstitutional, as it was a tax on immigration and thus a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the company, ruling that the fee was unconstitutional and that the Commissioners had no authority to impose it. The Court held that the fee was a tax on immigration, and thus was a violation of the Commerce Clause. The Court also held that the fee was not a valid exercise of the power of the state to regulate immigration, as it was not a reasonable exercise of the state's power. The Court thus ruled that the fee was unconstitutional and that the Commissioners had no authority to impose it.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Liverpool, New York and Philadelphia Steamship Company v. Commissioners of Emigration, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that imposed an annual tax on steamships for each passenger they carried from foreign ports into the United States violated federal laws regulating immigration. The majority opinion held that it did not violate those laws because Congress had not expressly prohibited such taxation. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while Congress had not explicitly forbidden states from imposing taxes on immigrants entering their borders, this should be implied in light of its power to regulate immigration under the Constitution and its intent to protect immigrants against exploitation by state governments. He argued further that allowing states to impose these kinds of taxes would lead them down a slippery slope towards more oppressive regulations which could interfere with congressional authority over immigration matters and ultimately harm both citizens and non-citizens alike who are seeking entry into the country.

Opinion written by Justice SMatthews
Decided: Jan 05, 1885
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms