Department of Transportation vs. Association of American Railroads - Essay Example

Insert Department of Transportation vs. Association of American Railroads In (8th December), an oral argument was heardby the United States’ Supreme Court in the case of the Department of Transportation versus the Association of American Railroads. The standoff in question required a determination as to whether indeed legislative power could be delegated to the Amtrak (a putative private player) as per the 2008’s Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The controversy revolved around the issue as to whether the Amtrak had the authority to develop standards for ascertaining if railroads are giving first priority to the passenger trains of Amtrak as is enshrined in the federal regulations concerning rail lines and their use. It was extensively alleged in the case that the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act section 207, which permits co-operation between the Amtrak and the government in issues of enhancing and coming up with standards and metrics of the railroad, offered the Amtrak unconstitutional mandate to regulate under the law of non-delegation (SCOTUS, 1). The Supreme Court thus had the challenging task of making a determination as to whether this mandate was unconstitutional. In the argument heard by the Supreme Court, the Department of Transportation, on its part, asserted that the act (section 207) was well within the boundaries of the constitution since the government still retained enough control and power over the Amtrak and that any regulation put forth by the Amtrak had to first get the green light from the government before gazettement or implementation. On the other hand, the Association of American Railroads presented opposing views and vehemently held that the act gave the Amtrak unlawful power to create rules seeing as it was a private group. The Department of Transportation said the Amtrak was a public group/ organization while the Association of American Railroads said the Amtrak was a private and profit driven organization. The ruling of the court would therefore have effects on the passenger rail market’s efficacy and the accountability of the government for the policies of the Amtrak. Did section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act accord legislative capabilities to a private group and so directly contravene and defile the doctrine of non-delegation? The Department of Transportation equally argued that even if the Amtrak was private, Congress still had the power to permit a private entity’s involvement in the development and approval of provisions. However, the Association of American Railroads countered this argument by stating that Congress could only use advice from private groups but not allow them legislative power. The Rail Passenger Service Act (1970) was passed by Congress in 1970. The act was aimed at helping in maintenance of the national passenger railroad system. This act led to the founding of the Amtrak organization which was to concern itself with the requirements of the national intercity passenger railway. Due to this 1970 act, Amtrak attained first choice status concerning the railway facilities’ use over the freight entities owned by freight trains. Moreover, Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 ensured that the federal government and Amtrak functioned together to come up with standards that govern the quality of passenger railway services. These standards were focused on enhancing the quality of services and performance of Amtrak trains, and in cases where the federal government and the Amtrak could not find consensus, a third party was to be appointed/ tasked with solving the impasse. Section 213 of the act allows the Surface Transportation Board the mandate to look into the organizations that own the railways plied by the Amtrak trains. In addition, the Surface Transportation Board wields the power to punish (by way of sanctions) any organization that does not give first priority to Amtrak trains (at lines, junctions and crossings) and hence cause delays (Cornell University, 1). When the Federal Rail Administration and the Amtrak came up with certain standards in 2010 they were met with opposition from the Association of American Railroads who challenged their endeavors in the District of Columbia’s District Court stating that providing such authority to a private organization was indeed against the laws of the land. Furthermore, Association of American Railroads argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause had been abused and disregarded when Amtrak was awarded powers to regulate its competitors. Upon hearing the Association of American Railroad’s plea, the court rejected their case, and on the Department of Transportation’s behalf, issued summary judgment. Unsatisfied with this unpalatable turn of events, the Association of American Railroads proceeded to the District of Columbia’s appeal court, and after hearing both sides of the argument, the court noted that Congress is wrong to give power of regulation to a private body. The court also noted that the law however only allowed for a private body to offer advice and that unlawful authority had been accorded to the Amtrak. The court also cited loopholes in the 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act in which case the third mediating party (in case of a disagreement between the Federal Rail Administration and the Amtrak, as earlier seen) would wield unlawful authority to create rules minus the participation of the government. In the end, the Court of Appeal declared that the Amtrak was a private entity, even as the Department of Transportation stated that it was a public body. The court defended this ruling by further observing the Amtrak was a profit based entity managed towards such ends. This was ruled regardless of the fact that the government owned most of the Amtrak shares and that the President himself had appointed a number of board members of Amtrak. The court consequently ruled that section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act was unconstitutional because it gave power to the wrong entity. However, the court of appeal failed to rule if the controversial section 207 contravened and violated the Due Process Cause of the Fifth Amendment (Cornell University, 1). In the consequent period, the Department of Transport’s certiorari petition was granted by the Supreme Court which was thereby tasked with determining whether Congress was wrong to accord the Amtrak such powers as in sections 207 of the PRIIA. After listening to the arguments, the Supreme Court, on Monday March 9th 2015, in a judgment delivered by Kennedy J, unanimously ruled that for the goal of separation of powers, Amtrak was indeed a governmental body and not a private entity, and therefore Congress had not contravened the constitution by giving the Amtrak power in the development of metrics and standards, for gauging performance of services of passenger rails. The decision was 9-0, hence reversing the previous ruling by the District of Columbia’s Court of Appeal (Barnes, 2015). Works Cited Cornell University, Law School. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/ SCOTUS. "Amtrak’s SCOTUS Case Might Be a Sleeper Hit." Web. 24 Mar. 2015. Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Says Amtrak Is More like a Public Entity Than a Private Firm." The Washington Post 9 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. . Barnes, Robert. "Court: Amtrak Not Strictly a Business." The Washington Post 10 Mar. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. . Read More