Railway Express Agency v. New York
Facts
New York City adopted a traffic safety regulation restricting advertising on vehicles. The regulation prohibited vehicles from displaying advertisements unless the advertisement related to the business of the vehicle’s owner.
In practical terms, the ordinance allowed a company to advertise its own goods on its vehicles (self-advertising), but prohibited a company from selling advertising space on its vehicles for third-party businesses.
Railway Express Agency operated delivery trucks and sold advertising space on those trucks. Under the ordinance, Railway Express could not continue selling third-party advertisements. It challenged the law, arguing that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating similarly situated vehicle advertisers differently without a rational reason.
New York City defended the ordinance as a safety regulation. The city claimed that advertising vehicles pose traffic risks by distracting drivers and pedestrians, and that limiting vehicle advertisements would promote road safety.
The Court was required to decide whether the distinction between self-advertising and third-party advertising was constitutionally permissible.
Issues
Does an ordinance violate Equal Protection when it regulates some advertising on vehicles but exempts owner-related advertisements?
Rule
Under rational basis review, a classification is constitutional if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
A law may be underinclusive and still constitutional; the government may attack a problem step-by-step and need not regulate all instances of a harm at once.
Application
Railway Express argued that the ordinance’s distinction was irrational because self-advertising and third-party advertising create the same distraction risk. The Court agreed the city had not perfectly eliminated vehicle advertising distractions, but it held that Equal Protection does not require perfect tailoring under rational basis review.
The Court accepted traffic safety as a legitimate government interest. Then it held that the city could rationally decide to prohibit third-party advertisements first, even if it left other distracting advertisements untouched. Legislatures may proceed incrementally and may address what they perceive to be the most acute or manageable part of a problem.
The Court also suggested that the city could rationally believe third-party advertising would proliferate more widely or be more attention-grabbing because it is designed explicitly for advertising profit. Even if that distinction is debatable, rational basis review does not require courts to validate the factual assumptions of lawmakers.
Ultimately, the ordinance survived because it was not wholly arbitrary. The classification had a conceivable rational link to a legitimate safety goal.
In future cases, Railway Express is frequently cited alongside Lee Optical as an example of extreme judicial deference. It also provides a clear underinclusiveness example: laws can regulate part of a perceived problem without invalidation for failing to regulate the whole problem.
Holding
The Court held that the ordinance did not violate Equal Protection. The distinction between self-advertising and third-party advertising was rationally related to the city’s traffic safety objective.
Court
The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Court upheld New York City’s traffic advertising ordinance under rational basis review.
Exam Notes
-
Classic rational basis Equal Protection case
-
Underinclusive laws are allowed: government may regulate step-by-step
-
Distinctions upheld if any rational link exists to legitimate interest
-
Strong deference to legislative judgment in economic/social regulation
-
Often paired with Lee Optical
-
Great example where classification seems questionable but still upheld
-
Exam trap: unequal treatment does not equal unconstitutional discrimination under rational basis