How is it that the STB has the deferential power of a Federal Court in railroad matters?

[CandOforprogress2]

How is it that a Federal Agency has the final say over a private industry and why does this not violate the seperation of powers Legislative,Executive,Judicial. How is it that a regulating agency trumps the courts and the courts defer to the regulating authority?

[mudchicken]

 

49 USC 10501 (b) 2

 

aka - "The Federal Exemption"

THANKFULLY KEEPS THE QUACKS, EGOMANIACAL EMPIRE BUILDERS and GOOD 'OL BOYS OUT OF THE GAME. LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD.

 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE?

 

[CandOforprogress2]

(a)

(1)Subject to this chapter, the Board has jurisdiction over transportation by rail carrier that is—

(A)

only by railroad; or

(B)

by railroad and water, when the transportation is under common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment.

(2)Jurisdiction under paragraph (1) applies only to transportation in the United States between a place in—

(A)

a State and a place in the same or another State as part of the interstate rail network;

(B)

a State and a place in a territory or possession of the United States;

(C)

a territory or possession of the United States and a place in another such territory or possession;

(D)

a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession;

(E)

the United States and another place in the United States through a foreign country; or

(F)

the United States and a place in a foreign country.

(b)The jurisdiction of the Board over—

(1)

transportation by rail carriers, and the remedies provided in this part with respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange, and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and

(2)

the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one State,

is exclusive. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.

(c)

(1)In this subsection—

(A)the term “local governmental authority”—

(i)

has the same meaning given that term by section 5302 of this title; and

(ii)

includes a person or entity that contracts with the local governmental authority to provide transportation services; and

(B)

the term “public transportation” means transportation services described in section 5302 of this title that are provided by rail.

(2)Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Board does not have jurisdiction under this part over—

(A)

public transportation provided by a local government authority; or

(B)

a solid waste rail transfer facility as defined in section 10908 of this title, except as provided under sections 10908 and 10909 of this title.

(3)

(A)Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a local governmental authority, described in paragraph (2), is subject to applicable laws of the United States related to—

(i)

safety;

(ii)

the representation of employees for collective bargaining; and

(iii)

employment, retirement, annuity, and unemployment systems or other provisions related to dealings between employees and employers.

(B)

The Board has jurisdiction under sections 11102 and 11103 of this title over transportation provided by a local governmental authority only if the Board finds that such governmental authority meets all of the standards and requirements for being a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission that were in effect immediately before January 1, 1996. The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 807; amended Pub. L. 104–287, § 5(21), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3390; Pub. L. 110–432, div. A, title VI, § 602, Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4900; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title III, § 3030(g), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1497.)

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

A.  Take a course in Administrative Law or 2nd semester Constituional Law.  

B.  Congress set it up that way, both in the law that established the STB (ICC Sunset Act, IIRC) and the Administrative Procedures Act.  The then-President signed those acts, which is 2 of the 3 branches of our government being OK with it. Congress can change that presumption and hierarchy if it so chooses - but it doesn't, because it can't or won't bother with the details.  

C. Supreme Court has interpreted those laws that way, which is the 3rd branch, so it's unanimous.  

- PDN.

[CandOforprogress2]

So if a party disagrees with the outcome of the STB can they then get the case cert or reviewed by a federal court? And which federal court does it go to?

[mudchicken]

They do frequently, usually at the federal district court level and rarely does the outcome change. Any time STB or a railroad gets sued over an STB procedural matter, it pops up as an NOR docket. Most all court referrals to the STB wind up being NOR dockets as well.

Amateurs off tilting at windmills won't fare well with STB as has been proven far too many times. They (STB/ICC) try their best to resolve conflicts outside the courts as a public ombudsman, but some people just don't listen.....

 

[CandOforprogress2]

What or Where is NOR dockets what court is that?

[Falcon48]

Minor point.  Appeals of STB decisions normally go to a Federal Court of Appeals, not to a District Court (years ago, appeals of ICC decisions initially went to a three judge District Court, but that procedure is long gone).

Where Federal District Courts normally get involved in STB cases is in areas where both the court and STB have jurisdiction to hear complaints in the first instance.  There are several areas where both have joint jurisdiction.  What usually happens, when a case like this is first brought in district court, is that the court will "refer" the case to STB, particularly in cases involving issues of regulatory policy or requiring some specialized expertise in railroading or rail regulation (under a Supreme Court doctrine called "primary jurisdiction").  In a referred case, the STB action will come back to the District Court before it gets appealed further.

You are correct that appeals of STB decisions aren't often successful.  Courts normally give substantial deference to decisions of an administrative agency (as they are supposed to do under Supreme Court precedent). But sometimes it happens.