US
v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP[1])
et al
Ponente:
Mr. Justice Stewart
Facts:
ú
December 13, 1971 substantially all
railroads in the US requested authorization from the Interstate Commerce
Commission to file 5 days’ notice of a 2.5% surcharge on nearly all freight
rates.
ú
Railroads sought January 1, 1972 as
the effective date for new rates
ú
According to Railroad companies:
Surcharge is an emergency measure designed to produce $246M annually to meet
the revenues that are going down and the costs that are going up. They claim over $1B loss annually and more
than $305M in increased wages alone.
ú
December 21, 1971- Commission
acknowledged the need but thought that January 1, 1972 date ‘would preclude the
public from effective participation.’ à
authorized a refile of same surcharge with not less than 30 days’ surcharge and
effective date of February 5, 1972
ú
January 5, 1972 – Railroads refiled
but several parties protested.
|
Interested
parties
|
Railroads
|
|
ú
Shippers, competing carriers and
environmental groups (including SCRAP) protested surcharge, praying for
7-month statutory suspension period found under the Interstate Commerce Act.
They claim:
o Economic,
aesthetic and recreational harm to their members
o Discourage
the use of recyclable materials à
promote use of new raw materials that compete with scrap materials à bad for
environment à
forced to pay more for finished products
o Impaired
use of forests and streams due to unnecessary destruction of timber and
accumulation of more waste specifically in the Washington, DC area.
|
o
‘since this was a general rate
increase, recylcable materials would not be made any les competitive…that in
the past general rate increases had not discouraged the movement of scrap
materials.
|
ú
February 1, 1972 report by the commission
held that ‘the involved general increase will have no significant adverse
effect on the movement of traffic by railway or on the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy act of 1969
o Surcharge
is not suspended
o April
24, 1972- ordered the proposed selective
increases filed by the carriers to be suspended for a full 7-month period
ending November 30, 1972 and permitted the collection of the surcharge until
that date
o SCRAP
FILED SUIT AS RESULT
Issues:
ú
Does SCRAP (and interveners) have
standing?
ú
Can the court validly decide this
issue without usurping the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the ICC by the
Congress?
a.
Were ICC’s orders unlawful for
failure to include a detailed environmental impact statement as required by
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Sec 102 (2) (C)?
Held:
ú
YES.
Even thought economic harm was not sufficiently proved
and the injuries claimed were not exactly specific to the petitioners due to
the cross country coverage of the railroad system the court held that aesthetic
and environmental well being are also important ingredients to the quality of
life in a society. ‘The fact that the environmental interests are shared by the
many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of judicial
protection. They cited Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp and
Barlow v. Collins in holding that standing can be granted when the ‘challenged
action had caused injury in fact and where the alleged injury was to an
interest arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by
the statutes that the agencies were claimed to have violated.
ú
NO.
The district court enjoined the ICC from ‘permitting’
the railroad surcharge due to an alleged implicit conferment of authority on
federal courts due to the violation of the NEPA 1969’s procedural requirements.
Citing Arrow the court held that courts are without jurisdiction over such an
issue due to the exclusive power vested in the commission by the congress. To
decide the issue is a direct interference with the commission’s discretionary
decision whether or not to suspend the rates. Furthermore nowhere in the
legislative history or the statutory language did the Congress imply such a
grant of power that was already expressly taken away by SEC 15 (7) of the
interstate commerce act. ‘To permit such judicial interference…would invite the
very disruption’ of the system congress set up for orderly and lawful review of
tariffs.
DECISION:
REVERSED and REMANDED.
[1]
An unincorporated association formed by 5 law students to enhance the quality
of the environment
No comments:
Post a Comment