Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

Supreme Court of United States
410 U.S. 224 (1973)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a statutory requirement for a "hearing" in a rulemaking context does not, by itself, trigger the formal, trial-type hearing procedures of §§ 556-557. These formal procedures are only required when the enabling statute explicitly states that the rule must be made "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing."


Facts:

  • For a number of years, the nation's railroads experienced a chronic, seasonal shortage of freight cars.
  • In 1966, Congress amended the Interstate Commerce Act to grant the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) authority to establish "incentive" per diem (daily) charges to be paid by railroads for the use of freight cars owned by other railroads.
  • The purpose of the incentive charges was to encourage the prompt return of borrowed cars and the acquisition of new ones to alleviate the national shortage.
  • The ICC initiated a rulemaking proceeding, directing all Class I and Class II railroads, including Florida East Coast Railway Co. and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., to compile and report detailed data on freight-car demand and supply.
  • After collecting data and facing congressional pressure to act, the ICC issued an interim report in December 1969 with its tentative conclusions and a proposed rule establishing a schedule of incentive charges applicable to all railroads.
  • The ICC's notice invited all interested parties to submit written "verified statements of facts, briefs, and statements of position" within 60 days.
  • Florida East Coast Railway Co. and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. filed written statements objecting to the proposed rule and specifically requested an oral hearing.
  • The ICC denied the requests for an oral hearing and, after reviewing the written submissions, issued a final order establishing the incentive per diem charges.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), after a rulemaking proceeding consisting of data collection and written submissions, issued a final order establishing incentive per diem charges for freight car use.
  • Florida East Coast Railway Co. and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. (appellees) filed suit against the United States and the ICC (appellants) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to set aside the order.
  • A three-judge District Court granted judgment for the railroads, holding that the ICC's denial of an oral hearing violated the formal hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it set aside the Commission's order.
  • The United States and the ICC appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

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 phrase "after hearing" in Section 1(14)(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act require the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to conduct a formal, trial-type hearing under Sections 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act when promulgating a rule, or are the informal notice-and-comment procedures of Section 553 sufficient?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rehnquist

No. The phrase "after hearing" in the Interstate Commerce Act does not require formal, trial-type proceedings under APA §§ 556-557; the informal notice-and-comment procedures of § 553 are sufficient for this type of rulemaking. The Court reasoned that its recent decision in United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp. was controlling, establishing that the APA requires formal rulemaking only when a statute uses specific language such as requiring a rule to be made "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing." The term "hearing" is flexible and does not inherently require oral testimony or cross-examination, especially in the context of a legislative-type, prospective rulemaking proceeding that applies across an entire industry. The Court distinguished this rulemaking from adjudication, comparing it to the general tax increase in Bi-Metallic Investment Co. (no individual hearing required) rather than the specific property assessment in Londoner v. Denver (individual hearing required). Because the ICC's rule applied to all railroads generally and did not adjudicate disputed facts in a particular case, the procedure of providing notice and an opportunity for written comment satisfied the statutory "hearing" requirement.


Dissenting - Justice Douglas

Yes. The procedure used by the ICC was insufficient because imposing a new financial liability is an adjudicatory act that requires a full hearing under the APA, including the right to present oral evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The dissent argued that the majority's distinction between rulemaking and adjudication was too simplistic here. Because the ICC's order imposed specific per diem charges that created a new financial liability, it was tantamount to a rate order, which is adjudicatory in nature. The appellees raised specific, significant challenges to the statistical validity of the ICC's data, and they were "prejudiced" under the APA by the denial of an opportunity to explore these factual disputes through cross-examination. Citing ICC v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., the dissent contended that ratemaking based on contested factual evidence has traditionally required a full hearing. Furthermore, the ICC itself initially indicated it would proceed under the formal hearing provisions, an interpretation of its own governing statute that should be given weight.



Analysis:

This decision is a landmark in administrative law that firmly established the procedural floor for informal rulemaking and clarified the threshold for formal rulemaking. By holding that the words "after hearing" alone do not trigger the APA's formal trial-type procedures, the Court prevented the ossification of the rulemaking process. This ruling allows agencies to use the more efficient and flexible notice-and-comment process under § 553 for most legislative-type rules, reserving the cumbersome and costly formal procedures of §§ 556-557 for cases where Congress explicitly demands an "on the record" proceeding. The case solidifies the distinction between quasi-legislative action affecting a general class and quasi-judicial action adjudicating individual rights, setting a strong precedent that procedural requirements are tailored to the nature of the government action.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"