Successfully Attacking Agency Regulations Thomas H. Dupree Jr. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
|
|
- Kelley Fox
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Successfully Attacking Agency Regulations Thomas H. Dupree Jr. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP SUMMARY: Challenging agency regulations in court can often prove an uphill battle. Federal courts will often review regulations deferentially under Chevron, emphasizing the importance of agency expertise and judgment. And the familiar arbitrary-andcapricious standard of review lacks the bite of the de novo standard that appellate courts use when reviewing pure legal questions. This paper examines a successful challenge to agency regulations in the transportation sector Association of American Railroads v. Department of Transportation, 821 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The case involved a challenge to the authorizing statute itself, in which Congress attempted to give the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak the authority to jointly issue performance standards governing Amtrak trains operating on the tracks of freight railroads.
2 Challenging agency regulations in court can often prove an uphill battle. Federal courts will often review regulations deferentially under Chevron, emphasizing the importance of agency expertise and judgment. And the familiar arbitrary-andcapricious standard of review lacks the bite of the de novo standard that appellate courts use when reviewing pure legal questions. This paper examines a successful challenge to agency regulations in the transportation sector brought by the Association of American Railroads. The case is Association of American Railroads v. Department of Transportation, 821 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2016). It involved a scheme in which the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak jointly issued performance standards governing Amtrak trains operating on the tracks of freight railroads. In this case, the challengers won at least so far, as it is possible the Government will continue to try to get the result overturned. The D.C. Circuit held the authorizing statute that is, the statute that gave the FRA and Amtrak the power to issue the regulations unconstitutional. Unlike many traditional arbitrary-and-capricious challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, when an authorizing statute is struck down as unconstitutional, the agency cannot simply issue new regulations in an effort to cure the procedural flaw. 2
3 I. In 1970, Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, to engage in the commercial enterprise of providing intercity passenger rail service. Nat l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454 (1985). Congress s purpose was to revitalize rail passenger service in the expectation that the rendering of such service along certain corridors can be made a profitable commercial undertaking. H.R. Rep. No (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4735, Congress provided that Amtrak is not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, but rather shall be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation. 49 U.S.C (a)(2)-(3). Describing Amtrak as a private corporation was consistent with historic practice, as [o]peration of passenger railroads, no less than operation of freight railroads, has traditionally been a function of private industry, not... government[ ]. United Transp. Union v. Long Island R.R., 455 U.S. 678, 686 (1982). Amtrak began offering passenger service on May 1, Because essentially all of the nation s rail infrastructure was owned at the time by the freight railroads, the only viable option was for Amtrak s passenger trains to operate over the freight railroads tracks. The same is true today: 97 percent of the 21,000 miles of track over which Amtrak operates is owned by freight railroads. The tracks used by Amtrak trains are also used by host railroads to move freight traffic. Just as an air-traffic controller manages departures and landings at a busy airport, the freight railroads must carefully schedule and manage the timing and sequencing of 3
4 the passenger and freight trains operating on their tracks to maximize available capacity and minimize back-ups and delays. Amtrak trains limit the host railroads ability to move freight and serve their customers. Thus, while Amtrak and freight railroads do not compete for passengers, they do compete for scarce resources (i.e. train track) essential to the operation of both kinds of rail service. 821 F.3d at 23 n.1. Subsection 207(a) of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act empowered Amtrak and the FRA to jointly develop and promulgate regulations establishing, among other things, on-time performance standards. If Amtrak trains did not satisfy these standards, the Surface Transportation Board ( STB ) could launch an investigation and potentially assess damages, payable directly to Amtrak, against the host freight railroad. Id The statute further provided that the freight railroads shall amend their existing contracts with Amtrak by incorporat[ing] the regulations into their contracts to the extent practicable. Id. 207(c). In addition, the statute provided that if Amtrak and the FRA could not agree on the content of the regulations, either party could ask the STB to appoint an arbitrator to write the regulations. Id. 207(d). II. Amtrak and the FRA jointly issued their regulations known as the metrics and standards in The metrics and standards forced the freight railroads to make immediate and substantial changes to their business operations, including delaying their own freight traffic and redirecting capital spending and resources in an effort to comply. See Ass n of Am. R.R. v. Dep t of Transp., 721 F.3d 666, 672 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ( The 4
5 record is replete with affidavits from the freight railroads describing the immediate actions the metrics and standards have forced them to take. ). AAR, whose members include North America s largest freight railroads, challenged PRIIA 207 on several constitutional grounds. AAR s complaint alleged, in relevant part, that Section 207 of PRIIA violates the due process rights of the freight railroads because it purports to empower Amtrak to wield legislative and rulemaking power to enhance its commercial position at the expense of other industry participants. The district court ruled in the Government s favor, but the D.C. Circuit reversed. It held that Section 207 constitutes an unlawful delegation of regulatory power to a private entity. 721 F.3d at 668. The Supreme Court then vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the premise that Amtrak should be deemed a Government entity for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards. Dep t of Transp. v. Ass n of Am. R.R., 135 S. Ct. 1225, 1228 (2015). Although Amtrak s actions here were governmental, the Court stated, substantial questions respecting the lawfulness of the metrics and standards... may still remain in the case and should be addressed in the first instance on remand. Id. at 1228, 1234 (citation omitted). III. On remand, the D.C. Circuit held that Section 207 violates the Fifth Amendment s Due Process Clause by authorizing an economically self-interested actor to regulate its competitors and violates the Appointments Clause for delegating regulatory power to an improperly appointed arbitrator. 821 F.3d at 23. 5
6 First, the court stated that the legal question at the heart of this case is whether it violates due process for Congress to give a self-interested entity rulemaking authority over its competitors. Id. at 27. Declaring that the Government s arguments are unpersuasive, the court ruled in AAR s favor, striking down Section 207. Id. at The court devoted ten published pages to explaining why subsection 207(a) s grant of rulemaking authority to Amtrak violates the Due Process Clause. Id. at The court concluded: The Constitution s drafters may not have foreseen the formidable prerogatives of the administrative state, but the Due Process Clause effectively guarantees the regulatory power of the federal government will be wielded by presumptively disinterested and duly appointed actors, who, in exercising that awesome power, are beholden to no constituency but the public good. Id. at 39. Second, the court held that subsection 207(d) violated the Appointments Clause because it delegated regulatory power to an improperly appointed arbitrator. Id. ( Without providing for the arbitrator s direction or supervision by principal officers, PRIIA impermissibly vests power to appoint an arbitrator in the STB. ); see also id. at 36 (after concluding due process analysis, consider[ing] the other challenge to PRIIA preserved for our review: whether the arbitration provision violates the Appointments Clause ) (emphasis added). The Government petitioned for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. On September 9, 2016, the D.C. Circuit denied the rehearing petition without calling for a vote. On February 1, 2017, after requesting and obtaining two extensions for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Acting Attorney General sent the Speaker of the 6
7 House a letter advising him that the Department of Justice had decided not to seek further review of the D.C. Circuit s ruling and would not be seeking certiorari. As the case currently stands, the Government is attempting to persuade the federal courts (so far unsuccessfully) to reinstate the grant of rulemaking authority, on the dubious theory that the statute can be severed in a way that cures the Appointments Clause violation while still allowing the grant of rulemaking authority. As the district court pointedly observed, the Government s argument is a ticket this Court cannot punch. 7
pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 13-1080 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Petitioners, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United
More informationNo IN THE. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit
No. 13-1080 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationInvestigation of Substandard Amtrak Performance Under Section 213 of The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
Investigation of Substandard Amtrak Performance Under Section 213 of The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 February 13, 2015 Presented by Kevin M. Sheys, Partner 1666 K Street NW, Ste.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. XX-XX In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationRECENT CASES AMERICA S COMMITMENT TO PASSENGER RAIL 1 3 (2013).
RECENT CASES SEPARATION OF POWERS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE D.C. CIRCUIT INVALIDATES PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IM- PROVEMENT ACT BECAUSE OF APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE FOR ARBITRATOR. Association of American Railroads
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1080 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 10, 2015 Decided April 29, 2016 No. 12-5204 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1080 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNos , , , , (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 16-3307, 16-3504, 16-3512, 16-3513, 16-3514 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. (No. 16-3307); ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
More informationPrivatization and the Constitution: Selected Legal Issues
Privatization and the Constitution: Selected Legal Issues Linda Tsang Legislative Attorney Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney September 25, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44965
More informationIn the Suprerr Court oft UnitedStates
No. 10-454 In the Suprerr Court oft UnitedStates ARIZONA CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, Vo KEN L. SALAZAR, et al., Respondents. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
More informationSURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION. Docket No. FD PETITION OF NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY ORDER
44807 SERVICE DATE FEBRUARY 25, 2016 EB SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No. FD 35949 PETITION OF NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY ORDER Digest: 1 The Board finds
More informationInterpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 16 9-15-2017 Interpreting Appropriate and Necessary Reasonably under the Clean Air Act: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency Maribeth Hunsinger Follow
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al.
In the Supreme Court of the United States 6 2W7 District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al. ON APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
i No. 13-1080 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No.
18 74 United States v. Thompson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No. 18 74 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
More informationNo. 12- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, Respondent.
No. 12- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationCase , Document 248-1, 02/05/2019, , Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 17-1164, Document 248-1, 02/05/2019, 2489127, Page1 of 7 17-1164-cv Nat l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. N.Y. State Dep t of Envtl. Conservation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY
More informationNo. 13- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
No. 13- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, v. Petitioner, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationHave Alien Tort Statute Claims Run Their Course?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Have Alien Tort Statute Claims Run Their
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-1004 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2016 (1 of 9) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 04/22/2011 Page 3 of 11
USCA Case #10-1070 Document #1304582 Filed: 04/22/2011 Page 3 of 11 3 BROWN, Circuit Judge, joined by SENTELLE, Chief Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: It is a commonplace of administrative
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent. APPLICATION TO THE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., FOR AN EXTENSION
More informationEnvironmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.: Administrative and Procedural Tools in Environmental Law. by Ryan Petersen *
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.: Administrative and Procedural Tools in Environmental Law by Ryan Petersen * On November 2, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case with important
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: May 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008) Docket No.
07-0757-cv In re: Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2007 (Argued: May 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008) Docket No. 07-0757-cv
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-1097 In the Supreme Court of the United States ESTATE OF WILBERT L. HENSON, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KAYE KRAJCA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: September 22, 2014 Decided: February 18, 2015) Docket No.
0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: September, 0 Decided: February, 0) Docket No. -0 -----------------------------------------------------------X COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 15, 2010 Decided March 4, 2011 No. 10-5057 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, APPELLANT
More informationEnvironmental Law - City of Auburn v. U.S. Government
Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 29 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey Article 11 January 1999 Environmental Law - City of Auburn v. U.S. Government Lisa Braly Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-11556 D.C. Docket No. CV-05-00530-T THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler,
More informationNO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Trevon Sykes - Petitioner. vs. United State of America - Respondent.
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2017 Trevon Sykes - Petitioner vs. United State of America - Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Levell D. Littleton Attorney for Petitioner 1221
More information49 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION SUBTITLE V - RAIL PROGRAMS PART C - PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 243 - AMTRAK 24308. Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak (a) General Authority. (1) Amtrak may
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc JODIE NEVILS, APPELLANT, vs. No. SC93134 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC., and ACS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY Honorable
More informationU.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 In the Matter of: BARRY STROHL, ARB CASE NO. 10-116 COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2010-STA-035 YRC,
More informationCase 5:18-cv Document 27 Filed in TXSD on 07/06/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION
Case 5:18-cv-00071 Document 27 Filed in TXSD on 07/06/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED
More informationshl Doc 23 Filed 08/27/12 Entered 08/27/12 14:52:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x In re Chapter 11 Case No. AMR CORPORATION, et al., 11-15463 (SHL)
More informationModified Opinion. No. 107,666 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. F.Y.G. INVESTMENTS, INC., and TREATCO, INC., Appellees.
Modified Opinion No. 107,666 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS WICHITA TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, and UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellants,
More informationThe Shadow Debate over Private Nondelegation in DOT v. Association of American Railroads
The Shadow Debate over Private Nondelegation in DOT v. Association of American Railroads Alexander Sasha Volokh* I. Introduction The nondelegation doctrine has an uneasy place in constitutional law. On
More informationCase 3:16-cv RP-CFB Document 46 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:16-cv-00026-RP-CFB Document 46 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION LISA LEWIS-RAMSEY and DEBORAH K. JONES, on behalf
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-493 In the Supreme Court of the United States KENT RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationAfter Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue
MEALEY S TM International Arbitration Report After Stolt-Nielsen, Circuits Split, But AAA Filings Continue by Gregory A. Litt Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP New York Tina Praprotnik Duke Law
More informationCase: , 03/23/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 38-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15218, 03/23/2017, ID: 10368491, DktEntry: 38-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 23 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv WLS
Case 1:14-cv-00042-WLS Document 71 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 9 Case: 15-13628 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-13628
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-739 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCENIC AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-801 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v. Petitioner, SF MARKETS, L.L.C. DBA SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
rel: 03/13/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationMotion for Rehearing denied January 7, 1983 COUNSEL
1 ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. V. CORPORATION COMM'N, 1982-NMSC-146, 99 N.M. 205, 656 P.2d 868 (S. Ct. 1982) IN THE MATTER OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY SEEKING PERMISSION TO CLOSE THE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-2641 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2017 (1 of 11) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PPG INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION COUNCIL OF THE UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS;
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-50936 Document: 00512865785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CRYSTAL DAWN WEBB, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-651 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY AND VICKY,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1495 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALVARO ADAME, v. Petitioner, LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationNo , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-364, 16-383 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JOSHUA BLACKMAN, v. Petitioner, AMBER GASCHO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., Respondents. JOSHUA ZIK, APRIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
JONATHAN CORBETT, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-12426 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-24106-MGC [DO NOT PUBLISH] FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationFederal Labor Laws. Paul K. Rainsberger, Director University of Missouri Labor Education Program Revised, June 2011
Federal Labor Laws Paul K. Rainsberger, Director University of Missouri Labor Education Program Revised, June 2011 VIII. NLRB Procedures in C (Unfair Labor Practice) Cases A. The Onset of an Unfair Labor
More informationENTERED Office of Proceedings April 19, 2016 Part of Public Record
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED 240521 BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Finance Docket No. 36025 ENTERED Office of Proceedings April 19, 2016 Part of Public Record TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 13-1289 & 13-1292 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States C.O.P. COAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GARY E. JUBBER, TRUSTEE,
More informationJAMES LAWRENCE BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, OFFICER K. ROBERTSON #Y234, YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants/Appellees.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04- LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D02-1405 IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, LLC f/k/a FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY A Florida Limited
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 01-270 In the Supreme Court of the United States YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., v. Petitioner, STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND ITS STATE TREASURER, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO JOSE A. CALIX-CHAVARRIA, Petitioner, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-3447 JOSE A. CALIX-CHAVARRIA, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On a Petition For Review of an Order of the
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-2224 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2018 (1 of 17) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HUGH MARTIN, SANDRA KNOX-MARTIN, KIRKLAND JONES, THERON MALOY, SHERILYN MALOY, Plaintiffs-Appellants
More informationThe Right to Counsel in Child Dependency Proceedings: Conflict Between Florida and the Fifth Circuit
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 1-1-1981 The Right to Counsel in Child Dependency Proceedings: Conflict Between Florida and the Fifth Circuit George
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-20640 Document: 00514520038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LOIS M. DAVIS, Plaintiff Appellant, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1986-NMSC-091, 105 N.M. 145, 730 P.2d 448 December 11, 1986, Filed
SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSP. CO. V. CORPORATION COMM'N, 1986-NMSC-091, 105 N.M. 145, 730 P.2d 448 (S. Ct. 1986) IN RE ADOPTION OF RAILROAD RULES AND REGULATIONS; SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, THE ATCHISON,
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationNinth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter
Ninth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter May 8, 2018 In Varjabedian v. Emulex, the Ninth Circuit recently held that plaintiffs bringing
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 18-976 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United
More information3 Key Defense Arguments For Post-Lucia SEC Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Key Defense Arguments For Post-Lucia SEC
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
898 674 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES held that the securities-law claim advanced several years later does not relate back to the original complaint. Anderson did not contest that decision in his initial
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1881 Elaine T. Huffman; Charlene S. Sandler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Credit Union of Texas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, ERIK K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent.
No. 13-837 In the Supreme Court of the United States ARNOLD J. PARKS, v. Petitioner, ERIK K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationJUDICIAL REVIEW OF I.C.C. ORDERS UNDER THE HOBBS ACT: A PROCEDURAL STUDY
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF I.C.C. ORDERS UNDER THE HOBBS ACT: A PROCEDURAL STUDY BY ARTHUR R. LITTLETON* On January 2nd, 1975 the Congress of the United States passed Public Law 93-584 the effect of which was
More informationCase 3:17-cv EMC Document 30-1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 19
Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 MICHAEL E. WALL (SBN 0 AVINASH KAR (SBN 00 Natural Resources Defense Council Sutter Street, st Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Tel.: ( 00 / Fax: ( mwall@nrdc.org
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2107 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-940 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF NORTH
More informationNo REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
No. 06-1431 FILED JUL 2? ~ CBOCS WEST, INC., Petitioner, Vo HEDRICK G. HUMPHRIES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Cera orari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit REPLY BRIEF
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-879 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE M. CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL. Respondents.
More informationCase: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-70162, 04/30/2018, ID: 10854860, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNo IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant,
USCA Case #17-5140 Document #1711535 Filed: 01/04/2018 Page 1 of 17 No. 17-5140 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant, v. JEFF SESSIONS
More informationJOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners,
Su:~erne Court, U.$. No. 14-694 OFFiC~ OF -~ Hi:.. CLERK ~gn the Supreme Court of th~ Unitell State~ JOSEPH L. FIORDALISO, ET AL., Petitioners, V. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition
More informationNo. 07,1500 IN THE. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN and LAWRENCE E. DANSINGER, Petitioners, CITY OF AUGUSTA, Respondent.
No. 07,1500 IN THE FILED OpI=:IC~.OF THE CLERK ~ ~M~"~ d6"~rt, US. TIMOTHY SULLIVAN and LAWRENCE E. DANSINGER, Petitioners, CITY OF AUGUSTA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
More informationCase 2:10-cv GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-0-geb-kjm Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CHAD RHOADES and LUIS URBINA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) :-cv--geb-kjm ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1044 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1368 WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION and WYETH (now known as Wyeth LLC), v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Kathleen Sebelius, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 17-498, 17-499, 17-500, 17-501, 17-502, 17-503, and 17-504 In the Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL BERNINGER, PETITIONER AT&T INC., PETITIONER AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER ON PETITIONS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511757371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PHYSICIAN HOSPITALS OF AMERICA and TEXAS SPINE & JOINT HOSPITAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationCase: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-15498 10/16/2014 ID: 9278435 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 16 2014 RICHARD ENOS; et al., No. 12-15498
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-405 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, v. Petitioner, KELLI TYRRELL, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Brent T. Tyrrell; and ROBERT M. NELSON, Respondents.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 06-340, 06-549 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, et al., Petitioners, v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Respondents. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued November 15, 2017 Decided December
More informationNos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Case: 13-57126, 08/25/2016, ID: 10101715, DktEntry: 109-1, Page 1 of 19 Nos. 13-57126 & 14-55231 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation
n~'~~:=~ teb 2. t, ZUl8 FOR DISiluc'r OF COLUMBIA ~CU~ FILED FEB 22 zo,a IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~----,CEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIR UIT CLERK MOZILLA CORPORATION, v. Petitioner,
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 12-842 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, v. NML CAPITAL, LTD., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For
More informationNO IN THE. NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Respondents.
NO. 08-63 IN THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TRANSLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., v. Petitioner, JON W. DUDAS, DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
More information