Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas
489 U.S. 493 · Decided March 6, 1989 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas was decided on March 6, 1989 unanimously (9–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local business regulation” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 489 U.S. 493 · 109 S. Ct. 1262 · 103 L. Ed. 2d 509 · 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1315
- Docket number
- 86-1856
- Decided
- March 6, 1989
- Argued
- November 29, 1988
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 9–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- William J. Brennan Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local business regulation
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Majority | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority |
Full case caption
Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1988-048, docket 1988-048-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local business regulation”
- Healy v. the Beer InstituteAltered precedentLaw held unconstitutional
- CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corporation of America
- Maine v. Taylor
- Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor AuthorityLaw held unconstitutional
- General Motors Corporation v. Evert Romein
- Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- George S. Bennett v. ArkansasLaw held unconstitutional
- Mark Howlett v. Scott Rose
- Rose v. Rose
- Rose v. Arkansas State PoliceLaw held unconstitutional
- Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1Law held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Goldberg v. Sweet
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission of Webster CountyLaw held unconstitutional
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director
- Massachusetts v. Morash
- Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error