Louis Brandeis

“ If, as is contended, the Commission was without jurisdiction, the railway is as free to proceed with the construction as if the application had not been made and the Commission had not acted. Nothing done by the Commission can prejudice the railway's claim to immunity in any other proceeding.
It is true that, if the railway builds without having secured a certificate, it may suffer serious loss. For a court may hold, in an appropriate proceeding, that the railway is within the purview of paragraph 18. ”

“ Plaintiffs do not complain of the order's denial of a certificate of public necessity and convenience. They concede that no court has the power to compel the Commission to issue such a certificate, since no railroad subject to the provisions of the act has a right to extend its lines. Therefore, the order denying a certificate, being negative in substance as well as in form, infringed no right of the railway. ”

“ Compare Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U.S. 282, 32 S.C.t. 761, 56 L. Ed. 1091; Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 412, 37 S.C.t. 397, 61 L. Ed. 819; United States v. New River Co., 265 U.S. 533, 540, 44 S.C.t. ”