Can NARP and Amtrak together at Supreme Court call on Alladin?

[NE933]

Regarding the upcoming case of proper dispatching, can someone from either organization piggyback the case for needed capital for fleet replacement? Or would that cause the justices to backfire, the equivalent of the perception of asking for too much at the wrong time?

 

[Paulus]

Revenue bills are required to originate in the House of Representatives, not the Supreme Court.

 

[afigg]

Regarding the upcoming case of proper dispatching, can someone from either organization piggyback the case for needed capital for fleet replacement? Or would that cause the justices to backfire, the equivalent of the perception of asking for too much at the wrong time?

Huh? Why would Amtrak's capital funding needs have any relevance for legal arguments before the Supreme Court on interpretation and implementation of one part of the 2008 PRIIA act? The issue before the Court, as I understand in layman's terms, is a question of regulatory and oversight authority.

 

[jis]

I think someone needs to first go and understand which organ of the federal government is responsible for what first, before coming up with a cogent question

 

[NE933]

Yes it did. And maybe the SC is the place to bring out this battle and settle it once and for all, since the age old argument of passenger train priority finally has its stage.

Regardless of the answer, Amtrak and NARP had better come to the dance prepared.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The case before the Supreme Court concerns Amtrak's qualifications to make judgements about the freight haulers' handling of Amtrak trains. It has nothing to do with adequate capital improvements.

 

[PRR 60]

The case before the Supreme Court concerns Amtrak's qualifications to make judgements about the freight haulers' handling of Amtrak trains. It has nothing to do with adequate capital improvements.

Correct. It has nothing to do with funding, or even if Amtrak is being delayed by the freight railroads.

The case revolves around the part of the law that required the FRA to set specific and enforceable on-time standards for freight railroad handling of Amtrak. That much was fine. What caused the legal issue was that Amtrak was granted veto power over the standards set by FRA. The FRA standards had to meet Amtrak approval. That effectively meant that Amtrak would set the standards, with the railroads subject to federal fines for violation of those standards (with the fines payable to Amtrak).

The problem is that Amtrak is legally considered to be a private corporation, at least according to the law establishing Amtrak, and as often claimed by Amtrak. Granting a private corporation the authority to set federally-enforced standards constitutes law-making, and the constitution limits law making power to the government. The government does not have the right to transfer that power to a private individual or corporation. Imagine if the DOT granted General Motors veto rights over automotive safety standards - standards then enforceable on Ford.

Amtrak's argument in this case is that they are not a private corporation: that they are a government entity and, as such, they are effectively part of DOT and thus have the right to set standards. The Supreme Court will make the final determination, which could hinge on whether they consider Amtrak public or private. However, if Amtrak wins and is thus considered a government entity, that could open up a lot of other areas such as open meetings, adherence to public procurement policies, and the such that Amtrak presently says do not apply to them since they are a private corporation. They claim to be both public and private, depending on which benefits them for a specific issue. A court ruling that they are a public entity could end the benefits Amtrak gets from claiming to be private.

This case is a fascinating mixed-bag for Amtrak. They could win by losing, or they could lose by winning.

 

[jis]

Imagine if the DOT granted General Motors veto rights over automotive safety standards - standards then enforceable on Ford.

Actually a more apt example would be Greyhound being able to make road operations standards that must be adhered to by anyone that builds and maintains roads (including state DOTs) and any fines due from violations to be paid to Greyhound! (each time Greyhound faces a red traffic light the owner of the road gets to pay Greyhound a fine - for example)
It will indeed be fun to watch Amtrak open itself to full FOIA coverage where they are not able to hide behind private corporation trade secret nonsense anymore.

 

[xyzzy]

Occasionally the Supreme Court does issue an opinion with broad consequences, but that's not the norm. It wouldn't surprise me if the Court trims its ruling on this case to be as narrow as possible.

 

[PRR 60]

Occasionally the Supreme Court does issue an opinion with broad consequences, but that's not the norm. It wouldn't surprise me if the Court trims its ruling on this case to be as narrow as possible.

That is true. Regardless, it will be fascinating to watch. I'm kind of a constitutional law buff, so stuff like this really interests me.

 

[neroden]

The fact is that there are endless examples of organizations which are considered government agencies for some purposes and not for others. So any ruling would have precisely zero impact on whether Amtrak is considered public for other purposes.

I'm not sure how long this "dual identity" situation has gone on, but it dates back at *least* to the 1920s (look at the Federal Reserve Banks -- "private corporations" for some purposes, government agencies for other purposes).