national association of railroad passengers
The question before us is whether this action is maintainable under applicable federal law. 
& Admin.News, p. 4735. In this Court and in the Court of Appeals, the parties have approached the question from several perspectives. In terms, 307(a) purports only to confer jurisdiction not to create a cause of action. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct.
See, e.g., Southern R. Co. v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 93, 84 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed.
547(a) provides: 'If the Corporation or any railroad engages in or adheres to any action, practice, or policy inconsistent with the policies and purposes of this chapter, obstructs or interferes with any activities authorized by this chapter, refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge its duties and responsibilities under this chapter, or threatens any such violation, obstruction, interference, refusal, failure, or neglect, the district court of the United States for any district in which the Corporation or other person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction, except as otherwise prohibited by law, upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any employee affected thereby, including duly authorized employee representatives, to grant such equitable relief as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or terminate any violation, conduct, or threat.'. 17849 and S. 3706 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., ser. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). 561, authorizes Amtrak to contract with any railroad to undertake its entire responsibility for intercity rail passenger service. 129, 132, 73 L.Ed.
Our problem concerns, not 'the basic system' created by Amtrak, but what were called on oral argument the 'excess' lines that, absent a contract with Amtrak, are under a congressional mandate not to discontinue 'any intercity passenger train whatsoever prior to January 1, 1975.' United States ex rel.
Please use the map to get directions. The purpose, which the Court in its dedication to legalisms overlooks, was to protect the people who ride the trains. 45 U.S.C. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the respondent has standing and that 307 does not otherwise bar such a suit by a private party who is allegedly aggrieved.4 We granted certiorari to decide whether such a private cause of action can be maintained in light of 307(a) of the Amtrak Act. Mr. Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In 1958, in an effort to reduce losses on passenger train operations, Congress enacted 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 154 U.S.App.D.C. If you would like to join our crafting team and display your handmade items from Lincolnshire then please feel free to contact us. Come in and browse a wide range of handmade items including but not limited to: Greetings Cards, Jewellery, Soft Furnishings, Candles, Art. The Commission advises that it examines over 2,000 proxy statements annually and each of them must necessarily be expedited. See, e.g., 45 U.S.C. For these reasons we hold that 307(a) provides the exclusive remedies for breaches of any duties or obligations imposed by the Amtrak Act, and that no additional private cause of action to enforce compliance with the Act's provisions can properly be inferred.13 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The respondent's position on the merits is based on the fact that Central, which entered a contract with Amtrak, is a subsidiary of Southern, which did not enter a contract with Amtrak. 501 et seq., authorized the creation of Amtrak to provide intercity rail passage. Except in certain limited situations not here pertinent, 45 U.S.C. The respondent contends that the contract between Amtrak and Central does not comply with 401(a)(1) of the Amtrak Act because Southern, the parent company, has not contracted with Amtrak. We are located in Woodhall Spa opposite Sainsburys. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141, 87 S.Ct. If, on the other hand, the Commission decides that the discontinuance is clearly permissible under 13a of the Act, and decides not to conduct an investigation or decides to terminate an investigation already begun, an aggrieved person has no recourse to the courts to review the Commission's decision. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS. 1555, 15591560, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964). No. Whether that failure of Southern bars the discontinuance of this passenger-train service goes to the merits of the complaint, was not passed upon below, and has no relevance to the question of standing to sue, the only issue before us. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, 45 U.S.C. The passengers are the victims of the transportation crisis out of which Amtrak seeks to make a fortune. 91765, p. 2 (1970). The Attorney General is a busy person; and it is not credible to believe that a grant of power to him to sue precludes the standing of passengers who are the prime casualties when passenger service is discontinued. I cannot believe the Congress had any such purpose. And, since judicial review 'is the rule, and nonreviewability an exception which must be demonstrated,' preclusion of judicial review 'is not lightly to be inferred.' We have found no contrary indication in any of the hearings or committee reports. It follows that support for the bringing of this action must be found, if at all, within the four corners of that Act.
547(a), gives the Attorney General of the United States and employees under labor agreements the power to obtain from a district court equitable relief against either Amtrak or any railroad acting in violation of the Act.3 Petitioners argue that 307(a) restricts suits to the Attorney General and to employees. The object was not to protect trains per se nor to create an in rem action. 547(a), does create a cause of action. While Central has entered into a contract with Amtrak to relieve it of responsibility for all intercity passenger service, Southern has not. 45 U.S.C. The separation of powers was designed to provide, not for judicial supremacy, but for checks and balances. 9162, p. 134 (1970) (emphasis added). The Secretary of Transportation, who was to be the primary administrative officer responsible for the implementation of the Act, sent a letter to the Subcommittee Chairman commenting on these proposed changes. In finding that the respondent had standing, the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 607, 3 L.Ed.2d 625 (1959); City of Chicago v. United States, 396 U.S. 162, 90 S.Ct. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 431432, 84 S.Ct. By receiving regular stock updates Crafters will be able to monitor their stock levels and identify best sellers. 564(b)(2) authorizes Amtrak to discontinue any passenger service, other than that contained in a 'basic system' designated by the Secretary of Transportation, upon its own initiative. The restraining order was dissolved when Amtrak prevailed on the merits. 
No standing, no cause of action was expressly given stockholders who might suffer from corporate action pursuant to a deceptive proxy solicitation.
We offer an outlet for local crafters and artisans to showcase their handmade items as well as providing craft workshops and supplies visit our Facebook page to be kept up to date on our new stock arrivals or browse the shop section to browse our products. In refusing to become involved in the case consolidated with this one in the Court of Appeals, the Attorney General's Office expressed the view that 'the statutory mandate of section 307(a) (45 U.S.C. Thus, the explicit legislative history of 307(a), such as it is, serves to support the same interpretation of its language that would be accorded by settled rules of statutory construction. Here is a selection of some ideas for the best edible gifts to give to your friends and family this festive season. Ibid. Excess lines, however, even though undertaken by Amtrak on its own initiative become part of the basic system and thus subject to the ICC discontinuance procedures if operated by Amtrak for a continuous period of two years. Because the reference in each instance is to 307(a) of the Act and the legislative history behind that provision, these questions overlap in the context of this case even more than they ordinarily would.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent did have standing and that 307(s) does not otherwise bar such a suit by an allegedly aggrieved private party. 501 et seq., Central contracted with Amtrak for the latter to assume Central's intercity rail passenger service responsibilities.1 Southern has not entered into any contract with Amtrak. 563(a). and Supp. Gordon P. MacDougall, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. The District Court dismissed the cause for lack of 'standing.'
That seems a strained construction. It goes without saying, however, that the inference of such a private cause of action not otherwise authorized by the statute must be consistent with the evident legislative intent and, of course, with the effectuation of the purposes intended to be served by the Act. The decision of the District Court is unreported. If passengers are denied standing to sue, Amtrak is largely on its own. Unless a railroad has a contract with Amtrak to render the service, it may not discontinue intercity passenger service prior to January 1, 1975, 'the provisions of any other Act, the laws or constitution of any State, or the decision or order of, or the pendency of any proceeding before, a Federal or State court, agency, or authority to the contrary notwithstanding.' 'As the bill now reads, only the Attorney General, except in cases involving a labor agreement, could bring such actions.' . The respondent, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), brought this action in the District Court to enjoin the announced discontinuance of certain passenger trains that had previously been operated by the Central of Georgia Railway Co. (Central). 499. In outlining the purpose of the Amtrak Act, the House Report, referring to a comment by the Secretary of Transportation, noted that '(i)n order to achieve economic viability in a basic rail passenger system, . Central is a subsidiary of Southern Railway Co. But, however phrased, the threshold question clearly is whether the Amtrak Act or any other provision of law creates a cause of action whereby a private party such as the respondent can enforce duties and obligations imposed by the Act; for it is only if such a right of action exists that we need consider whether the respondent had standing to bring the action and whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain it. Please email, How to encourage creativity in your child from an early age, Best 10 summer crafts for children to keep them busy, An essential guide to craft insurance for your business, 31 Day Handmade May Challenge social media post ideas, Do a craft room spring clean and become more productive, The life cycle of products in handmade business, Find inspiration from the seasons of nature. The Committee's redraft and the bill as finally enacted authorized suits against railroads as well as Amtrak, and permitted suits involving labor agreements by 'duly authorized employee representatives' as well as by affected employees, but did not authorize suits by 'any person adversely affected or aggrieved.'. Although I am in agreement that the legislative history of the Amtrak Act provides a clear and convincing expression of Congress' intent to preclude anyone except the Attorney General and in certain situations an employee or his duly authorized representative from maintaining an action under the Act against petitioners, I would leave open the question whether a private suit for mandamus under 28 U.S.C. 962, at 44 (1970). Before 1958, railroads desiring to discontinue uneconomic passenger routes were required to secure the permission of state regulatory commissions. Thereafter, the Committee redrafted 307(a) in conformity with the Secretary's recommendations. '1 45 U.S.C. If in that interim there can be no policing of the Act, we have given a corporation which is private and operating for a profit, an administrative absolution we seldom have been willing to conclude that Congress has bestowed even on federal agencies. A frequently stated principle of statutory construction is that when legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies. They satisfy the stringent test we laid down in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. See 45 U.S.C. Congress specifically did that when it came to 'the basis group' of carriers. 522. . With 'the expectation that the rendering of such (rail) service along certain corridors (could) be made a profitable commercial undertaking,' the Act established Amtrak as a private-for-profit corporation. Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88, 61 S.Ct. . H.R.Rep. See J. I. The issue has been variously stated to be whether the Amtrak Act can be read to create a private right of action to enforce compliance with its provisions; whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under the terms of the Act to entertain such a suit; and whether the respondent has standing to bring such a suit. 564(a). (footnotes omitted). What lessons we can learn from the Covid lockdown to improve our business for the future, we should at least come out with some positives from the pandemic! on Transportation and Aeronautics of House Comm.
911580, p. 3 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. One halfway through the month and another at the end of the month along with any money that they have made. If the respondent's view of the Act were to prevail, a private plaintiff could secure injunctive process to prevent the discontinuance of an 'uneconomic' passenger train pendente lite, which would force Amtrak to continue the train's operation and to incur the resulting deficits and dislocations within its entire system while the court considered the propriety of the proposed discontinuance.10 Since suits could be brought in any district through which Amtrak trains pass and since there would be a myriad of possible plaintiffs, the potential would exist for a barrage of lawsuits that, either individually or collectively, could frustrate or severely delay any proposed passenger train discontinuance. Respondent brought this action to enjoin discontinuance of certain passenger trains on the ground that such discontinuance was prohibited by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Amtrak Act). 832, 837, 838, 25 L.Ed.2d 192. ..'5 At the hearings of the House Committee, representatives of organized labor took issue with certain aspects of the draft provision and proposed several changes. The popularity of products over their sale is known as a product life cycle, here I explain how this can be used for your handmade business products. The Amtrak Act was in significant part a response to congressional dissatisfaction with the administrative delays inherent in passenger route discontinuances under existing legislation. If you would like to join our crafting team and display your handmade items from Lincolnshire then please feel free to contact us. In 404 of the Act, Congress provided an efficient means whereby Amtrak could eliminate uneconomic routes (other than a 'basic system' designated and from time to time augmented by the Secretary of Transportation) without the necessity of submitting to the time-consuming proceedings of state regulatory bodies or the Interstate Commerce Commission that had been required before the Act's passage.8 If, however, 307(a) were to be interpreted as permitting private lawsuits to prevent the discontinuance of passenger trains, then the only effect of the Act in this regard would have been to substitute the federal district courts for the state or federal administrative bodies formerly required to pass upon proposed discontinuances.9. & Admin. Amtrak is a private-for-profit corporation which is only construing its own enabling Act. Supp. Even if one court eventually upheld the discontinuance, its judgment would not control a suit brought in another district and would not, in any event, obviate the loss in the interim of substantial sums and the diversion of rolling stock from more heavily traveled routes.
. 564(a), from discontinuing any passenger train before January 1, 1975. 547(a). After the enactment of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Amtrak Act), 84 Stat.
..' Id., at 204, 82 S.Ct., at 703. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that there was 'standing.'
E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the petitioners. 58 (1940). The natural season can give you inspiration for colours, themes and holidays. There is no such body standing between the passengers and Amtrak. Rail service which is undertaken by Amtrak on its own initiative but which is not part of the basic system may be discontinued at any time.
Time does not permit an independent examination of the facts set out in the proxy material and this results in the Commission's acceptance of the representations contained therein at their face value, unless contrary to other material on file with it.' Thus, Congress concluded that 'a rational reduction of present service will be required in order to save any passenger service.' 547, and accordingly dismissed the action. . As the Court of Appeals noted, the petitioners 'have been unable to refer us to a single instance in which the Attorney General has either instigated or participated in litigation under the Amtrak Act, except for a few cases brought by other parties in which he intervened solely to support the defense that parties other than labor and the Attorney General did not have standing to sue.' 308, 333335 (1967). For 307(a), 45 U.S.C. 564(b)(2). NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION et al., Petitioners,v.NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS. As to the thirdthat judicial review has not been precludedit seems as plain to me as it did to the Court of Appeals. 'When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode.' No. Named as defendants were Central, its parent, Southern Railway Co. (Southern), and the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), all of which are the petitioners in this Court. Potomac Passengers Assn. Handmade Gift Shop located in Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire. Since we hold that no right of action exists, questions of standing and jurisdiction became immaterial.
The syllabus constituted no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Just as an aggrieved passenger has no access to the courts when the Commission, under 13a, takes no action on a complaint, so likewise under the Amtrak Act an aggrieved passenger has no access to the courts when the Attorney General has refused to object to a proposed passenger train discontinuance by bringing an action under 307(a) to enjoin it. When we turn back this respondent, we turn back passengers who are the victims of the present transportation debacle. Under 13a after the railroad has filed a notice of discontinuance continuance with the Commission, an aggrieved person may file a complaint. 908 (D.Conn.1972), where the court granted and then extended a temporary restraining order while it considered the merits of a challenge to a proposed discontinuance. 324 (N.J. 1958), aff'd, 359 U.S. 27, 79 S.Ct. . Fully stocked with handmade gift and interior decor items locally created and sourced. Id., at 432, 84 S.Ct., at 1560. The most I think that can be drawn from the words of 307(a) and the legislative history is that Congress wanted to make sure that some federal agency had some oversight over the public activity of this private-for-profit corporation. Only if the Commission conducts in investigation and issues an order, a procedure that Congress explicitly eliminated for routes subject to the Amtrak Act but outside the basic system, is judicial review available. 'The achievement of the Act's laudable goal could be severely hampered, however, if each citizen were required to depend solely on litigation instituted at the discretion of the Attorney General. 214, 227, 475 F.2d 325, 338 (1973). In support of the latter proposal, one labor spokesman testified: 'The . Whatever the merits of the distinction between these three concepts may be in some situations, the difference here is only a matter of semantics. Especially in light of the Secretary's substantial role in the eventual implementation of the Act,7 we cannot conclude that his interpretation of its draft provisions was not accorded significant weight by the Committee. (emphasis in original). On oral argument respondent informed us of two instances in which it obtained injunctive relief against rail service discontinuance after the Attorney General declined to act. 13a. It is so much easier to be productive if you can find all your supplies have a craft room spring clean and you will be able to find all your supplies. 
There is hanging and worktop space available as well but the 3 shelves gives you a rough idea of floor space so to speak. 564(b)(2).2 The gravamen of the respondent's complaint was that these discontinuances are not authorized by, and in fact are prohibited by, the Amtrak Act.3 The District Court concluded that the respondent lacks standing under 307 of the Amtrak Act, 45 U.S.C. 214, 475 F.2d 325 (1973).
One of these proposals would have authorized suits against the railroads as well as Amtrak. Both the Secretary of Transportation and the representatives of organized labor thus interpreted 307(a) in its present form as precluding private actions other than those specifically authorized therein. Shop rent is for as much stock as you can fit on to 3 of the shelves on one of our bookcases. Although the Secretary did not oppose this amendment, he expressed the opinion that it might be unnecessary to make sanctions applicable to any railroad in light of other, existing statutes and in light of Amtrak's amenability to suit under 307(a) as it was then written. The only section of the Act that authorizes any suits to enforce duties and obligations is 307(a), which provides: 'If the Corporation or any railroad engages in or adheres to any action, practice, or policy inconsistent with the policies and purposes of this chapter, obstructs or interferes with any activities authorized by this chapter, refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge its duties and responsibilities under this chapter, or threatens any such violation, obstruction, interference, refusal, failure, or neglect, the district court of the United States for any district in which the Corporation or other person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction, except as otherwise prohibited by law, upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any employee affected thereby, including duly authorized employee representatives, to grant such equitable relief as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or terminate any violation, conduct, or threat.' But even the most basic general principles of statutory construction must yield to clear contrary evidence of legislative intent. Those who complain are not adventurers who seek personal aggrandizement as do jackals who historically have fattened on some economic debacles. 97, 101, 85 L.Ed. 1361 might be maintained against the Attorney General if his refusal to act under 307 even though within the letter of his authoritywent 'beyond any rational exercise of discretion.' In the case of labor agreements, individual employees or duly authorized employee representatives may sue for equitable relief.' 912, 918, 1 L.Ed.2d 972. The only private cause of action created by that provision, however, is explicitly limited to 'a case involving a labor agreement.' These factors are substantial indicia that the legislators understood that 307(a) as written would preclude private causes of action to enforce compliance with the Act, other than in the limited area of cases 'involving a labor agreement.' There is no commission unless you sell over 300 of stock in a month, then it would be 10%. Even the Solicitor General who appeared as amicus curiae in support of granting the petition for certiorari conceives of the issue in terms of 'standing.' But its mandate not to discontinue passenger service until January 1, 1975, except on a contract with Amtrak is clear. Section 307(a), 45 U.S.C. Since the Act creates a public cause of action for the enforcement of its provisions and a private cause of action only under very limited circumstances, this maxim would clearly compel the conclusion that the remedies created in 307(a) are the exclusive means to enforce the duties and obligations imposed by the Act. 2273, 36 L.Ed.2d 957 (1973). Those intercity services are not yet a part of 'the basic system' put together by Amtrak, a system which by 202 of the Act is unique in the sense that it 'shall not be reviewable in any court. Hence the grant of standing, or cause of action, to the Attorney General. Whatever the semantics, the question is whether respondent, National Association of Railroad Passengers, a national organization of railroad patrons, may bring this action to enjoin the discontinuance by Central of Georgia Railway Co.2 of passenger trains between Savannah and Atlanta, Georgia, and between Albany, Georgia, and Birmingham, Alabama. In light of the substantial scrutiny to which Amtrak operations are subject by both Congress and the Executive, Congress could quite rationally suppose that this remedy will effectively prevent and correct any Amtrak breaches of obligations under the Act.12.
It conferred upon federal district courts jurisdiction to entertain suits against Amtrak (but not individual railroads) 'upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any individual affected thereby . 911580, p. 9 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. Congress left untouched 28 U.S.C. This would completely undercut the efficient apparatus that Congress sought to provide for Amtrak to use in the 'paring of uneconomic routes.' Contracts have a 2 month notice period. 45 U.S.C. 1327, 45 U.S.C. The Attorney General has a limited staff and often might be unable to uncover quickly new regulations and enactments passed at the varying levels of state government. there will have to be a 'paring of uneconomic routes."
New Jersey v. United States, 168 F.Supp. The House Report explained the section as follows: 'Section 307 authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to sue the corporation or any railroad to prevent acts of omission or commission in violation of this legislation.
These passengers should be heard. Improve your professionalism in your handmade business. Each case involving the availability of judicial review stands on its own feet. Upon entering such a contract, a railroad can discontinue any intercity passenger train by merely filing a 30-day notice of intent with the Interstate Commerce Commission, in accordance with the notice requirements of 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.
