15 replies to this topic

[CNJRoss]

StreetsBlogUSA, 8/13:

Will the Supreme Court Help Amtrak Run Its Trains on Time?

The Supreme Court has the chance to redeem its spotty record of late by making the trains run on time. Yes, it’s in their power.

If you’ve noticed lately that Amtrak trains have been more delayed and more run-down than usual, there’s a very good reason for that. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Amtrak had too much authority to keep freight railroads in line. Most Amtrak trains outside of the Northeast Corridor run on tracks owned and operated by Class I freight railroads, meaning passenger trains can often get stuck behind freight trains that leave whenever their cargo is loaded, not on a schedule.

SNIP

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in June to review the lower court’s ruling on Amtrak’s ability to hold Class I railroads accountable for on-time performance. The National Association of Railroad Passengers, which is filing an amicus brief on Amtrak’s behalf , calls it “one of the most important issues NARP has ever tackled.”

Read more.

[CNJRoss]

E & E Publishing, 10/31:

As punctuality plummets, Amtrak confronts freight in Supreme Court battle

Wisconsin resident Bob Fisher had a ticket to ride the train. He ended up on a bus.

Fisher, a retired planner from La Crosse, had planned to take Amtrak's Empire Builder eastward across the state to Milwaukee for a conference this summer. Informed that his train was running six hours late, Fisher disappointedly opted to make the trip on a motor coach chartered at the railroad's expense.

For Amtrak travelers, such schedule-shredding snafus are becoming more common as delays push long-distance train punctuality to its lowest point in years, driving off customers and raising costs.

SNIP

But while grain and industrial shippers are also up in arms about clogged tracks and spotty service attributed to a surge in crude-by-rail traffic, Amtrak executives see another force in play: a federal appellate court's decision last year to strike a provision in a 2008 law that provided more leverage for prodding freight railroads to give passenger trains legally required preference on their tracks.

Following that July 2013 ruling, "we saw an immediate drop in [on-time performance] across the board," said Amtrak spokesman Craig Schulz.

SNIP

The case is now before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 8.

Read more here.

[steve4031]

and amtrak could help themselves by cleaning up Chicago. I wish the supreme court could do that.

[CNJRoss]

The New York Times, posted 12/8:

Supreme Court Hears Cases on Internet Shopping and Railroads

 

WAWASHINGTON — In a pair of Supreme Court arguments on Monday, about Internet shopping and railroads, the justices seemed unusually concerned that their answers to the technical issues before them could have vast ripple effects

 

SNIP

 

In the railroad case, a trade group challenged a 2008 federal law that it said gave Amtrak, which carries passengers, too much power over freight railroad companies.

 

“The Constitution does not permit Congress to create a corporation, deem it nongovernmental, and then launch it into the commercial sphere with a for-profit mandate, and then vest it with regulatory authority over other companies in the same industry,” the group’s lawyer, Thomas H. Dupree Jr., said in describing Amtrak.

 

A lawyer for the federal government, Curtis E. Gannon, disputed almost every clause of that sentence. But there was no question that the 2008 law allowed Amtrak to play a role in setting performance standards.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

AP, 12/8:

Justices seem divided over Amtrak regulatory role  

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court seemed divided Monday on whether Amtrak had the legal authority to help craft federal regulations intended keep its trains running on schedule.

 

The court heard arguments over a 2008 law that directed Amtrak to work with government agencies to develop new standards for improving the passenger railroad's on-time performance.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Bloomberg news, 12/8:

Amtrak’s On-Time Metrics Questioned at U.S. Supreme Court 

 

U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned a federal law credited with improving Amtrak’s on-time performance, hearing arguments from freight railroads that the measure subjects them to unlawful penalties.

 

In an hour-long session today in Washington, the court weighed whether the 2008 law unconstitutionally lets Amtrak help set performance standards that can trigger government investigations of freight carriers.

 

The standards enforce a requirement that freight railroads, including Union Pacific Corp. (UNP), give Amtrak priority on their tracks. An industry trade group says the railroads are being forced to substantially change their business operations, at times by delaying their own freight traffic.

 

A federal appeals court ruled that the industry-opposed measure is an illegal delegation of regulatory power to Amtrak, a private for-profit corporation with some governmental aspects.

 

Continue here.

[Sloan]

 

 

The perils of fast-tracking

 

LIKE Plato's early dialogues inquiring into the meaning of justice or piety, Monday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court ended with no clear answer to the central question: what, exactly, is Amtrak? In the case of Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, for which oral arguments were heard on December 8th, the justices grappled with whether the nationwide passenger train service is or isn't part of the government, and whether it unconstitutionally steps on the toes of other train companies.

http://www.economist...ress-and-amtrak

[CNJRoss]

The New York Times, posted 3/9:

 

Continue here.

 

“.   .   .   Amtrak is not an autonomous private enterprise,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Amtrak was created by the government, is controlled by the government and operates for the government’s benefit.”

 

[CNJRoss]

The Wall Street Journal "Law Blog," 3/9:
 

High Court Leaves Unsettled Amtrak Role Over Rail Regulations

 

A Supreme Court ruling on Monday left it unclear whether Amtrak can be authorized to set performance standards for itself as part of a government effort to improve passenger rail performance.

 

SNIP

 

While ruling that Amtrak was a government entity—not a private company as the Association of American Railroads contended—the high court said “substantial questions” about the constitutionality of the performance standards “may still remain in the case,” reports WSJ’s Brent Kendall:

 

    The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy] highlighted legal questions over Amtrak’s leadership structure and whether Congress violated the freight rail companies’ due process rights by giving Amtrak regulatory authority over its own industry. The justices declined to resolve those issues, however, saying a lower federal court should consider them first.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

SCOTUS Blog, 3/9:

 

Opinion analysis: Deciding — without deciding finally

Analysis

In a ruling that may turn out to have a major impact on whether America’s passenger trains run on time, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Amtrak is a part of the government, but the Justices did not settle what government powers it will be allowed to use.  It will take at least another round in a federal appeals court, and probably a return to the Court, before the case of Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads is finally settled.

 

However, three opinions issued Monday raised considerable doubt that the authority to set standards to assure on-time performance of rail passenger service will remain as Congress dictated in a new Amtrak law seven years ago.   How that ultimately turns out, perhaps a couple of years from now, may depend on whether Congress takes the issue back into its own hands, and itself writes new rules.

 

SNIP

 

The Kennedy opinion directed the D.C. Circuit, in reexamining the 2008 law and Amtrak’s role, to deal with three leftover constitutional issues — if those technically remain in the case when the case gets back to that lower tribunal.  (That question depends on whether the parties have kept those questions alive for a new look by the D.C. Circuit — an issue the lower court will first decide.)

 

First, the D.C. Circuit, according to the Kennedy opinion, must decide whether the arrangement for naming Amtrak’s president violates the part of the Constitution that dictates how government officials are chosen.  That issue arose directly out of the conclusion that Amtrak is a government entity.

 

Second, the D.C. Circuit must decide whether it violates constitutional “due process” to give one entity operating in the railroad business — Amtrak, the passenger service operator — a powerful role in controlling the activity of other parts of that industry — the freight railroads.

 

And, third, the D.C. Circuit must decide whether the arrangements for selecting an arbitrator to settle disputes that arise over the standards for use of railroad facilities violates the constitutional principle that Congress cannot give away its own legislative powers, and separately violates constitutional rules on how officials exercising government powers are to be chosen and put into office.

 

Read more here.