Yes. Amtrak is part of the government. The government can't get around the Constitution by creating a company, controlling who runs it, and then just saying 'it's not us.' Because Congress created Amtrak to provide a public service (running passenger trains) and the U.S. President appoints most of its leaders, Amtrak must follow the First Amendment. It can't just ban political ads without a very good reason.

No. The Court shouldn't have even answered this question. In the lower courts, the artist's lawyer argued that Amtrak was a private company, so it's not fair to suddenly change the whole argument now. But even looking at the original issue, Amtrak's decision was its own private business choice. The government didn't order Amtrak to reject this specific ad, so the rejection wasn't a 'government action.'

Yes, Amtrak should be treated as part of the government for First Amendment purposes. This is because Congress created Amtrak to achieve public goals, and the government still has a lot of control over how it operates. The government chooses most of Amtrak's board members and gives it a lot of money. This means that when Amtrak does things, it's like the government doing them, so it has to follow the same rules about free speech. The Court says that the government can't avoid following the Constitution just by creating a company to do its work. It doesn't matter that Amtrak is called a private company - what matters is how it was created and how much control the government has over it.

No, the Court shouldn't have decided whether Amtrak is part of the government because that wasn't the main question they were supposed to answer. Justice O'Connor thinks Amtrak's decision not to show Lebron's ad was just a business decision, not a government action. She says the Court should have focused on whether Amtrak's specific decision about the ad was influenced by the government, not whether Amtrak itself is part of the government. O'Connor believes there's no evidence that the government told Amtrak to reject the ad, so it shouldn't be treated like a government decision.

Yes. A corporation is part of the Government for First Amendment purposes where the Government creates it by special law to further governmental objectives and retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of its directors. Congress's statutory declaration that Amtrak is not a government agency is dispositive for matters within congressional control, such as statutory obligations, but it cannot override the Constitution. If a corporation is, by its nature and structure, an instrumentality of the state, a congressional label cannot exempt it from constitutional constraints like the First Amendment. Amtrak was created by a special statute to achieve federal goals—the continuance and improvement of railroad passenger service—and the government controls it through its power to appoint a majority of the board of directors. This level of control for the purpose of achieving public objectives makes Amtrak a government actor.

No. The Court should not have reached the question of whether Amtrak is a government entity because the petitioner, Lebrón, expressly disavowed this argument in the lower courts and failed to properly present it in the petition for certiorari. Addressing the question that was properly before the Court—whether Amtrak's action as a private entity could be attributed to the state—the answer is no. For private conduct to be considered state action, the government must have influenced or coerced the specific challenged decision. Here, there is no evidence that the Federal Government had any involvement in Amtrak's specific decision to reject Lebrón's advertisement; the policy originated with a private predecessor and the decision was made by a corporate officer, not at the direction of the government-appointed board.

Yes, Amtrak is considered a government entity for the purposes of the First Amendment because it was created by Congress to achieve public objectives, and the government retains substantial control over its operations. This control includes the appointment of a majority of its board members and significant financial support, making its actions subject to constitutional scrutiny. The Court holds that where the Government creates a corporation by special law, for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of that corporation, the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First Amendment. The Court reasons that it cannot be that government, state or federal, is able to evade the most solemn obligations imposed in the Constitution by simply resorting to the corporate form. The Court distinguishes this case from previous decisions involving government-created corporations, emphasizing that Amtrak was established and organized under federal law for the very purpose of pursuing federal governmental objectives, under the direction and control of federal governmental appointees.

No, because the question of whether Amtrak acts as a government entity was not properly presented in the petition for certiorari, and thus should not have been addressed by the Court. Justice O'Connor argues that Amtrak's decision to reject Lebron's advertisement was a private business judgment not attributable to the government. She contends that the Court should have focused on the narrower question of whether Amtrak's conduct as a private actor is attributable to the government, rather than whether Amtrak itself is a government entity. O'Connor emphasizes that there is no evidence that the government influenced or coerced Amtrak's decision to reject the advertisement, and that such decisions were made pursuant to corporate policy and private business judgment.

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot