Center for Auto Safety v. Skinner
Decision Date | 25 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-5240,90-5240 |
Parties | The CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, Appellant, v. Samuel SKINNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 90-00096).
Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., R. Craig Lawrence, Nathan Dodell, and John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the motion for summary affirmance, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Henry M. Jasny, Washington, D.C., was on the opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, for appellant.
Before WALD, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
The Center for Auto Safety ("the Center") appeals from an order of the district court dismissing the Center's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Center sought to challenge a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration, a part of the Department of Transportation ("DOT"), pursuant to authority transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC") to DOT under the Department of Transportation Act. Because the district court correctly concluded that the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review such regulations, we grant the government's motion for summary affirmance. 1
The Department of Transportation Act provides that DOT actions taken pursuant to authority transferred from another department or agency "shall be subject to judicial review to the same extent and in the same manner as if such ... actions had been by the department or agency exercising such functions, powers, and duties immediately preceding their transfer." 49 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1653(c). When Congress transferred authority over motor carrier safety from the ICC to DOT in 1966, ICC actions were reviewed by three-judge district courts. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2325 (1970), repealed by Pub.L. No. 93-584, Sec. 7, 88 Stat. 1918 (1975). In 1975, Congress amended the Hobbs Act to eliminate the three-judge panels and provide for exclusive review of ICC actions in the courts of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2342(5). Because the Center challenges a regulation issued pursuant to authority transferred from the ICC and ICC regulations are now subject to review in the courts of appeals, the plain language of Sec. 1653(c) compels the conclusion that the challenged regulation is subject to review in the courts of appeals. See Owner-Operators Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Skinner, 931 F.2d 582, 586 (9th Cir.1991); Cousins v. Secretary of U.S. Dep't of Transp., 880 F.2d 603, 611 (1st Cir.1989) (en banc).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aulenback, Inc. v. Federal Highway Admin.
...FHWA regulations issued pursuant to authority transferred to the Secretary of Transportation from the ICC. Center for Auto Safety v. Skinner, 936 F.2d 1315 (D.C.Cir.1991). In 1995, Congress abolished the ICC. See ICC Termination Act, Pub.L. 104-88, § 101, 109 Stat. 804 (1995). Except where ......
-
International Broth. of Teamsters v. Pena
...Secretary's behalf, see 49 U.S.C. Sec. 104(c)(2); 49 CFR Sec. 1.48(f)), review lies in the courts of appeals. Center for Auto Safety v. Skinner, 936 F.2d 1315 (D.C.Cir.1991). Here, however, the FHWA relied not only on the Secretary's powers under Sec. 3102(b), but also on the Secretary's po......
-
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Pena
...by the ICC--that is, in the court of appeals on a petition for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2342(5). In Center for Auto Safety v. Skinner, 936 F.2d 1315 (D.C.Cir.1991), we held that courts of appeals, rather than district courts, had jurisdiction over challenges to regulations "issued by ......
-
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Federal Highway Admin.
...for motor carrier employees. See Clark v. Skinner, 937 F.2d 123, 126-27 (4th Cir.1991); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Skinner, 936 F.2d 1315 (D.C.Cir.1991) (per curiam); Owner-Operators Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Skinner, 931 F.2d 582 (9th ATA advances two arguments in support of its peti......