| Litigants: | New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann |
| Arguedate: | February 19 |
| Argueyear: | 1932 |
| Decidedate: | March 21 |
| Decideyear: | 1932 |
| Fullname: | New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann |
| Usvol: | 285 |
| Uspage: | 262 |
| Parallelcitations: | 52 S. Ct. 371; 76 L. Ed. 747 |
| Prior: | Complaint dismissed, 42 F.2d 913 (W.D. Okla. 1930); affirmed, 52 F.2d 349 (10th Cir. 1931); cert. granted. |
| Holding: | Due process prevents a state legislature from arbitrarily creating restrictions on new businesses only on the claim that its markets affected a public use, such as requiring a license to sell ice. |
| Majority: | Sutherland |
| Joinmajority: | Hughes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler, Roberts |
| Dissent: | Brandeis |
| Joindissent: | Stone |
| Notparticipating: | Cardozo |
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The New State Ice Company, which was properly licensed in by the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, brought suit against Liebmann to prevent him from selling ice in Oklahoma City without a license. At that time, electric refrigerators were expensive; thus, most people used block ice for cooling food.
The lower courts had relied on Frost v. Corporation Commission to conclude that a license is not necessary if existing businesses are "sufficient to meet the public needs therein."[1]
The Supreme Court struck down the requirement that businesses selling ice obtain a license as violating the Due Process clause of the Constitution. The Court distinguished the case from Frost, which was concerned with businesses that grind grain. It found a public interest key to feeding the population that was not comparable to the ice market.
Justice Brandeis dissented from the court's opinion and was joined by Justice Stone: