Law in Plain English: Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Oneok Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

Argument: TBD (Aud.)

Background: Learjet and other retail buyers of natural gas sued Oneok and other natural gas traders for state and federal anti-trust claims, alleging that they manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications. The district court ruled for the defendants, finding that the state law anti-trust claims were pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq. (NGA). The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that Congress had carefully divided up the regulatory power over the natural gas industry. It did not envisage federal regulation of the entire natural gas field to the limit of constitutional power. Rather, it contemplated the exercise of federal power only as specified in the NGA. Congress has previously limited the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and in this case the panel determined that the state law anti-trust claims arose out of transactions outside of FERC's jurisdiction. As a result, the NGA did not preclude these claims.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether the Natural Gas Act, which occupies the field as to matters within its scope, preempts state-law claims challenging industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions.

Holding: In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Respondents’ state-law antitrust claims are not within the field of matters pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act.

Law in Plain English: Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads

Argument: Dec 3 2014 (Aud.)

Background: Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 empowers Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to jointly develop performance measures to enhance enforcement of the statutory priority Amtrak's passenger service has over other trains. The Association of American Railroads, a trade association who members include the largest freight railroads, challenged the statutory scheme as unconstitutional. The district court rejected these claims, but the D.C. Circuit reversed. The panel found that Amtrak was a private corporation with respect to Congress's power to delegate regulatory authority, and as such § 207 constituted an unlawful delegation of regulatory power to a private entity.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, which requires the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak to “jointly...develop” the metrics and standards for Amtrak’s performance that will be used in part to determine whether the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will investigate a freight railroad for failing to provide the preference for Amtrak’s passenger trains that is required by federal law, and provides for the STB to appoint an arbitrator if the FRA and Amtrak cannot agree on the metrics and standards within 180 days, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity.

Holding: In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity. The Court found that congressional pronouncements are not dispositive of Amtrak’s status as a governmental entity for purposes of separation of powers analysis under the Constitution, and as a result, the Court remanded the case  for determination of substantial questions respecting the lawfulness of the metrics and standards—including questions implicating the Constitution’s structural separation of powers and the Appointments Clause.

Do the right thing

Last week, I was riding the Baltimore Light Rail and I found a wallet. I'll be honest with you--the first thought that went through my head was to leave it. I know this sounds heartless. But knowing the shady types of people that one is likely to encounter on the Light Rail (and I've seen my fair share), my first instinct is to leave it because I don't want to get involved. My brain has been wired to expect that it's entirely possible that someone is running some type of scam. Maybe they're not targeting me directly, but they're looking for a sucker. I didn't want to be that guy.

Against my initial thought, I picked it up and looked through it. It was an ID wallet with several disability ID cards for the Light Rail and DC Metro as well as other stuff you find in a wallet (no, there was no money or credit cards).

I thought about turning the wallet over to the Light Rail driver, but wondered how long it might take to find its owner, if ever. I thought about dropping it off at the MTA headquarters, but again wondered if this wallet would get lost in the system. Against my initial thought, I pocked the wallet with the intent of locating the owner and returning it to him.

When I returned home (with a little bit of advance work by my better half), it took all of five minutes of searching to find the owner. I was able to contact him, confirm it was his, and then meet up with him (in a public place) to turn it over.

I write this not to suggest that I did anything special. I did what I hope someone else would do if I had lost my wallet. He probably went through a hassle to get his disability ID cards and I was able to save him the pain. But more importantly, I went against my initial reaction. Riding the Light Rail every day, walking through Baltimore every day, grates on you. Your guard is up at all times. Your head is on a swivel. You're always looking out for potential threats. This isn't to suggest that Baltimore is a terrible place. But I've learned though experience that being cautious is the best defense. A few murders and assaults in the immediate vicinity of the campus will do that to you. Being on guard 24/7 wears you down emotionally and physically. After a while, it becomes very easy to say "no" to everything.

But sometimes, you should do the right thing.

Law in Plain English: Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Argument: Dec 9 2014 (Aud.)

Background: CSX pays Alabama's 4% sales tax whenever it purchases diesel fuel in the state. CSX's main competitors in the state-interstate motor and water carriers do not. Motor carriers pay an excise tax of 19c per gallon. Water carriers pay no tax at all on diesel fuel purchases. CSX filed suit, alleging that by paying the 4% sales tax, the state discriminated against CSX in violation of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulation Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act). The Act provides that a state may not "[i]mpose another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part." The district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that because the state's motor carriers paid a roughly equivalent amount in taxes pursuant to the state's fuel excise tax, the motor carriers' exemption from the sales tax was not discriminatory. The district court also found that CSX had offered no evidence regarding the purported discriminatory effect of the tax as it related to water carriers. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that because rail carriers paid the state's sales tax and motor and water carriers did not, the tax was discriminatory-regardless of whether other taxes leveled the playing field.

Issue: The questions before the Court are (1) whether a state “discriminates against a rail carrier” in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4) when the state generally requires commercial and industrial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay a sales-and-use tax but grants exemptions from the tax to the railroads’ competitors; and (2) whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4), a court should consider other aspects of the state's tax scheme rather than focusing solely on the challenged tax provision.

Holding: TBD

A rough day is all a matter of perspective

For me, a rough day is getting up at 4:30AM and not getting back home until after 10:00PM. Sometimes, though, a rough day is all a matter of perspective. This woman was passed out drunk on the light rail with a beer can in her purse. When she got kicked off the light rail, she dropped a citation for disorderly conduct ($500 or 90 days in jail) for sleeping at BWI Airport. I don't know her story beyond that, but I'd say she's had a rough day.

Parking lot at the North Linthicum Light Rail Station, part three

I'm not sure if these are new, or if I am just noticing them now. But there are now two solar-powered security cameras installed on the light poles in the parking lot of the North Linthicum Light Rail Station. There was a truck there this afternoon which appeared to be installing one of them, but I'm not certain that they weren't just doing maintenance on them.

Hopefully someone is watching them. If so, surely they would have noticed the flash of my camera. :-)

My previous posts about the North Linthicum Light Rail Station are here and here.

Parking lot at the North Linthicum Light Rail Station, redux

Shortly after I made this post, the Maryland Department of Transportation visited my blog. I assume that is just a coincidence. Since then, I have seen an increase in police presence in the parking lots at night. Also probably a coincidence. But a good development, nonetheless.

On a related point, I've also seen an increase in fare enforcement on the Light Rail. On the other hand, my 8 rides a week are a small sample.

This is the parking lot at the North Linthicum Light Rail Station

The lights are right down the middle of the parking lot. There are actually rows of parking on either side of the lights, but you wouldn't be able to tell from this photograph. I'm standing about ten feet from the left edge of the parking lot; again, you wouldn't be able to tell because it's so poorly lit.