Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

PETITIONER: Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company
RESPONDENT: Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)
LOCATION: 169th Judicial District Court of Texas

DOCKET NO.: 73-1966
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 422 US 289 (1975)
ARGUED: Mar 26, 1975
DECIDED: Jun 24, 1975

ADVOCATES:
A. Raymond Randolph, Jr. - for appellants United States and others
Charles A. Horsky - for appellants Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Co. and others
E. Bruce Butler - for appellee Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc
Edward L. Merrigan - for appellee National Association of Recycling Industries, Inc
John F. Hellegers - for appellees SCRAP and others
Randolph -

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 26, 1975 in Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 24, 1975 in Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)

Warren E. Burger:

The judgments and opinion of the Court in No. 73-1966, Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad against SCRAP, and 73-1971, a related case along with two other cases, 74-156, Hicks against Miranda, and 74-201, City of Richmond against the United States will each be announced by Mr. Justice White.

Byron R. White:

In 73-1966 and 73-1971 so-called "SCRAP case".

We noted probable jurisdiction from appeal on an appeal for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

This case has a long and complicated history which I need not go into right now.

The District Court concluded that the Interstate Commerce Commission had given inadequate attention to environmental factors in refusing to declare unlawful a general revenue rate increase which the Nation's railroads had filed.

The District Court ordered that the commission should conduct further proceedings in which it would give more explicit attention to environmental concerns by filing a new environmental impact statement.

For the reasons given in an opinion filed today, we conclude that the District Court had jurisdiction, that we in turn have jurisdiction over this appeal, and that the District Court erred in several respects, in ruling that the ICC should conduct further proceedings in this case.

We accordingly reverse the judgment of the District Court.

Mr. Justice Douglas has filed a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision in this case.