Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases
419 U.S. 102 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When Congress authorizes a government action that constitutes a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment, a remedy in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act is presumed to be available to provide just compensation. This remedy will only be considered withdrawn if Congress has done so with clear and unambiguous statutory language.
Facts:
- Eight major railroads in the northeast and midwest region of the United States entered into bankruptcy reorganization proceedings under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.
- The largest of these, the Penn Central Transportation Co., incurred massive operating losses, aggregating approximately $851 million from mid-1970 through 1973.
- These railroads were deemed essential to the national welfare, but their ongoing financial losses threatened to halt service.
- In response to this crisis, Congress passed the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (Rail Act).
- The Act required the bankrupt railroads to continue operating their rail services, despite ongoing losses, pending the implementation of a Final System Plan.
- The Act mandated the creation of a new, for-profit corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), to which the bankrupt railroads' essential rail properties would be compulsorily conveyed.
- In exchange for their properties, the bankrupt railroad estates were to receive securities of Conrail and a limited amount of government-guaranteed obligations issued by the United States Railway Association (USRA).
Procedural Posture:
- Creditors and the sole stockholder of the Penn Central Transportation Co., along with the trustee of another bankrupt railroad, filed three separate lawsuits against the United States and the United States Railway Association (USRA).
- The suits, filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, challenged the constitutionality of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973.
- The cases were consolidated for hearing before a single three-judge District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The three-judge District Court declared parts of the Rail Act unconstitutional, finding that the Act precluded a Tucker Act remedy for losses caused by forced continued operations (an 'erosion taking') and thus violated the Fifth Amendment.
- The District Court enjoined the defendants from enforcing certain provisions of the Act and from certifying a Final System Plan.
- The United States, USRA, and the Penn Central Trustees filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, which mandates the conveyance of bankrupt railroads' properties to a new corporation in exchange for securities and other benefits, violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by failing to provide just compensation and by precluding a damages remedy in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act for any constitutional shortfall?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 does not violate the Fifth Amendment because the Tucker Act provides a constitutionally adequate remedy for any shortfall in just compensation. The question is not whether the Rail Act affirmatively provides a Tucker Act remedy, but whether Congress has clearly withdrawn the pre-existing grant of jurisdiction to the Court of Claims for claims founded upon the Constitution. The Rail Act contains no such clear withdrawal. Given the ambiguity in the statute and its legislative history, canons of statutory construction require a finding that the remedy remains available, especially the canon that directs courts to construe statutes to avoid grave constitutional doubts. This Tucker Act remedy is available for both potential 'erosion takings' from forced interim operations and the final 'conveyance taking' of rail properties. With this remedy available as a backstop, the Act's reorganization scheme, including the use of securities as consideration, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Bankruptcy Clause and does not violate procedural due process.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 violates the Fifth Amendment because it sanctions a 'fraudulent conveyance' of private property without just compensation and its legislative history clearly indicates an intent to preclude a Tucker Act remedy. The compensation offered, primarily stock in the new, unprofitable Conrail, is merely 'token payment' and wholly inadequate. The majority engages in a 'sheer tour de force' of judicial legislation by inventing a Tucker Act remedy that Congress sought to avoid, as shown by legislative colloquy expressing a clear intent to prevent courts from having a 'key to the Treasury.' Furthermore, the Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause by applying only to a specific geographic region and imposing a much harsher reorganization process on these railroads and their creditors than is available to bankrupt railroads elsewhere in the country.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in the application of statutory interpretation to uphold a major piece of federal legislation against a serious constitutional challenge. By finding that the Tucker Act remedy was not implicitly withdrawn, the Supreme Court provided a constitutional 'safety valve' that allowed Congress's sweeping plan to reorganize the nation's northeastern rail system to proceed. The ruling powerfully affirms the strong presumption that a remedy for a governmental taking exists unless Congress explicitly and unequivocally legislates otherwise. This case serves as a crucial precedent for the breadth of congressional power under the Bankruptcy Clause to address regional economic crises, while also reinforcing the judiciary's role in ensuring that such legislative solutions ultimately provide for the payment of just compensation required by the Constitution.
Unlock the full brief for Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases