Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Surface Transportation Board, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 22-1209 · judgment June 30, 2023
Before the decision, about 7.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a D.C. Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Questions presented
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is authorized by statute to exempt certain transactions involving rail carriers from the antitrust laws and other laws. 49 U.S.C. §§ 10502, 11321. Under the statutory and regulatory scheme, the Board must exempt “[t]ransactions within a corporate family that do not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or a change in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family.” 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(3). Ordinarily, the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act) to review STB decisions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321(a), 2342(5). But 28 U.S.C. § 1336(b) creates a narrow exception when a district court refers a question to the Board: “the court which referred the question or issue shall have exclusive jurisdiction” to review the Board’s ruling. 28 U.S.C. § 1336(b). The questions presented are:
-
Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321(a) and 2342(5) to review a ruling of the Surface Transportation Board, when that ruling addresses a question that was not referred to the Board by a district court but is contained in a decision with an additional, separate ruling that does address a question referred to the Board by a district court.
-
Whether the court of appeals erred, contravening Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), by effectively deferring to the STB’s erroneous interpretation of an unambiguous regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(3), that wrote an atextual prior-authorization requirement into that regulation.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Shay Dvoretzky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Apr 15 2024Petition DENIED.
- Mar 20 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
- Mar 20 2024Reply of petitioner Norfolk Southern Railway Company filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 28 2024Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Feb 28 2024Brief of respondent CSX Transportation, Inc. in opposition filed.
- Jan 24 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 28, 2024, for all respondents.
- Jan 23 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 29, 2024 to February 28, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 26 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 29, 2024, for all respondents.
- Dec 22 2023Motion respondent CSX Transportation, Inc. to extend the time to file a response from December 29, 2023 to January 29, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 21 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 29, 2024.
- Dec 20 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 29, 2023 to January 29, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 27 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 29, 2023)
- Oct 17 2023Application (23A226) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 27, 2023.
- Oct 13 2023Application (23A226) to extend further the time from October 30, 2023 to November 27, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.
- Sep 12 2023Application (23A226) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 30, 2023.
- Sep 06 2023Application (23A226) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 28, 2023 to October 30, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.