| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Union Pacific Railway Company v. Cheyenne, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Union Pacific Railway Company had the right to build a railroad through the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The city of Cheyenne had passed an ordinance prohibiting the construction of a railroad within the city limits. The Union Pacific Railway Company argued that it had the right to build the railroad under the terms of a federal charter granted to it by Congress. The Supreme Court held that the Union Pacific Railway Company did have the right to build the railroad through the city of Cheyenne. The Court reasoned that the federal charter granted to the Union Pacific Railway Company was a contract between the company and the United States, and that the city of Cheyenne had no authority to interfere with the contract. The Court further held that the ordinance passed by the city of Cheyenne was invalid because it was in conflict with the federal charter. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Union Pacific Railway Company had the right to build a railroad through the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and that the ordinance passed by the city of Cheyenne was invalid.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Union Pacific Railway Company v. Cheyenne, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that Congress had not intended for railroad companies to be able to acquire land through eminent domain without compensating those whose property they were taking, as this would violate their Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, he noted that if railroads were allowed to take private property without compensation it could lead to a situation where individuals' rights are trampled upon by powerful corporations with no recourse available for them. He concluded his dissent by noting that while there may have been some ambiguity in the language of the statute at issue, it should be interpreted narrowly so as not to infringe on citizens' constitutional rights or grant too much power over public lands and resources into corporate hands.