| Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued December 8, 2014 Decided March 9, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Department of Transportation, et al., Petitioners v. Association of American Railroads |
| Docket no. | 13–1080 |
| Citations | 575 U.S. 43 (more) 135 S. Ct. 1225; 191 L. Ed. 2d 153 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 721 F.3d 666, 406 U.S. App. D.C. 34 (D.C. Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 573 U.S. 930 (2014). |
| Holding | |
| For purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in judgment) |
Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held "for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity."[1]
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the Opinion of the Court, remanding the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, while Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment.[2]
Thomas's opinion focuses on the separation of executive and legislative powers.
Today, the Court has abandoned all pretense of enforcing a qualitative distinction between legislative and executive power. To the extent that the 'intelligible principle' test was ever an adequate means of enforcing that distinction, it has been decoupled from the historical understanding of the legislative and executive powers and thus does not keep executive "lawmaking" within the bounds of inherent executive discretion.
He goes on to state that "Section 207 therefore violates the Constitution. Article I, §1, vests the legislative power in Congress, and Amtrak is not Congress. The procedures that §207 sets forth for enacting the metrics and standards also do not comply with bicameralism and presentment. Art. I, §7. For these reasons, the metrics and standards promulgated under this provision are invalid."
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
