LOCATION: The Transportation Agency
DOCKET NO.: 85-1222
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
CITATION: 479 US 450 (1987)
ARGUED: Dec 10, 1986
DECIDED: Jan 20, 1987
Fernando Rodriguez - on behalf of the respondents
Michael E. Roper - on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1267
Richard G. Taranto - on behalf of the petitioners in No. 85-1222
Facts of the case
Media for Interstate Commerce Commission v. TexasAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 10, 1986 in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 20, 1987 in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas
William H. Rehnquist:
The opinion for the Court in Interstate Commerce Commission against Texas and a related case will be announced by Justice Stevens.
John Paul Stevens:
This case raises a narrow issue of a statutory construction, it involves the question whether the Railroad Commission of Texas in regulate a narrow segment of what is known as Piggyback Service transportation of freight on a partly on a railroad flatcar and partly being hold by a motor carrier in a continuous movement.
The issue blows down to whether when it is the services performed by an interstate rail carrier and the movement itself is entirely within the state of Texas.
Whether the portion of the movement that has provided by trucks and be regulated by Texas and it turns on whether that portion of the movement is considered transportation provided by a rail carrier or by a motor carrier.
And for reason stated in an opinion filed with the Clerk, we conclude that in as much as equipment is entirely own by the railroad at the time and it is a real carrier within the meaning of the statue, that it is a rail carrier transportation.
And therefore an exemption for this portion of the movement ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission deprives the State of the Texas of the power to regulate this portion.
And we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which it held to the contrary.
The opinion is unanimous.