Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

United States v. Ludlum Steel Corp.

United States Supreme Court
406 U.S. 742 (1972)


Facts

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) (defendant), an agency that no longer exists, once regulated various aspects of railroad transportation. Under the Esch Car Service Act (Esch Act), the ICC had the authority, after hearing, on complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, to establish rules, regulations, and practices related to train car service. The Esch Act did not require that such rules be made on the record. Ludlum Steel Corp. and other shippers (plaintiffs) sought judicial review of rules that the ICC promulgated through informal rulemaking. They argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) required the ICC to hold a hearing prior to the promulgation of any rule.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)

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 251,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 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.