Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Association of American Railroads v. United States Department of Transportation

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
721 F.3d 666 (2013)


Facts

The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), 49 U.S.C. § 24101 et seq., created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, as part of an effort to revitalize passenger-rail service. Congress expressly created Amtrak as a for-profit corporation and provided that Amtrak’s board of directors was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The RPSA relieved struggling railroad companies of the burden of providing intercity passenger service. In return, the railroad companies consented to conditions that included giving Amtrak priority over freight trains in track access. Subsequently, in § 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), 49 U.S.C. § 24101, Congress attempted to give joint authority to Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (defendant), an agency in the United States Department of Transportation (defendant), to create performance measures for intercity passenger trains. Along with enforcement measures in § 213 of the PRIIA, § 207 enhanced Amtrak’s statutory priority over other trains. After Amtrak and the FRA submitted their jointly prepared performance standards for public comment, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) (plaintiff) and other groups criticized the standards as unduly burdensome. AAR brought suit against the defendants, arguing that the PRIIA’s delegation of joint regulatory authority to Amtrak was unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. AAR appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.