VI LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS Continued 79 Cong. Rec. 12,209 (July 31, 1935) MISCELLANEOUS: Page 5 6,7 6,7 Ari and Olive Hoogenboom, A History of the ICC: 5 19 In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1982 No. 82 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE OPINIONS BELOW The October 1, 1981 decision of the court of appeals (as modified by the rehearing decision of October 23, 1981) is reported at 659 F.2d 452 (App. A, 1a-60a). The initial mandate of the court of appeals was issued on November 13, 1981 (App. B, 61a62a). The February 25, 1982 decision of the court of appeals granting, in part, the petition for a writ of mandamus is reported at 669 F.2d 957 (App. C, 63a-83a). Rehearing was denied by the court of appeals on March 9, 1982 and a Statement of Reasons issued March 10, 1982 (App. D, 83a-86a). The March 30, 1982, decision of the court of appeals denying, in part, the request for a writ of mandamus is (1) 2 at 673 F.2d 82 (App. E, 87a-98a). Associate Justice White's stay of the court's February mandamus decision is unreported, but is appended as Appendix F, 99a-100a. The notice of proposed Commission policies and rules in Ex Parte MC-142 (Sub-No. 1) was published at 132 M.C.C. 114 and 45 F.R. 61,326 (App. G, 101a132a), and the final policies and rules in that proceeding were published at 132 M.C.C. 374 and 45 F.R. 86,747 (App. H, 133a-192a). The Commission's notice of proposed statement of general policy in Ex Parte 55 (Sub-No. 43A) appears at 45 F.R. 45,545 (App. I, 193a-222a) and the final policy was published at 45 F.R. 86,797 (App. J, 223a-280a). JURISDICTION Because the February 1982 decision of the court of appeals modified its October decision and mandate, under 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (c) the 90-day period for filing a timely petition for certiorari as to the merits of the full controversy commenced when the court of appeals issued its February 25, 1982 decision. (See discussion infra, 17-19). By orders of May 17, and July, 1982, (App. M) Associate Justice White extended the time for filing this petition to July 9, and July 16, 1982, respectively. (App. M, 317a-318a). The Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1) and 1651 (a). STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED Pertinent provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-296, 94 Stat. 793 (49 U.S.C. §§ 10101 et seq.), are set forth in Appendix K, 281a310a. The pertinent regulations and policies are set forth in Appendices G through J, identified directly above. 3 I. STATEMENT A. Nature Of The Case This case involves implementation of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (the 1980 Act), enacted on July 1, 1980. The 1980 Act directed the Interstate Commerce Commission to promote competition in interstate motor carriage by relaxing the licensing requirements for carriers proposing to serve the public and by permitting existing carriers to obtain more comprehensive operating authorities. After appropriate public notice and comment, the Commission established, in December 1980, procedural rules and policy guidelines encouraging (a) new applicants to apply for broader authority than had traditionally been authorized, and (b) existing authority holders to seek removal of restrictions from and broadening of previously-issued narrow authorities. The already-established trucking interests, represented by the American Trucking Associations, the Teamsters, household goods carriers, and several individual trucking companies, challenged the Commission's new policies in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 1981 the court of appeals issued a decision holding that the agency's guidelines encouraging carriers to seek broader, more competitive operating authority were, in fact, rules and as such invalid as exceeding the mandate of the 1980 Act. The court of appeals found the legislative history of the 1980 Act confusing and substituted its judgment for that of 2 Pub. L. No. 96-296, 944 Stat. 793. 4 the Commission as to how the 1980 Act should be interpreted. Although the court's decision was not clear as to how it was to be applied to individual decisions among the thousands of diverse applications processed by the Commission annually, the agency sought in good faith to comply with the court's mandate as it perceived it. For months, the Commission and petitioners below debated the proper application of the court's decision. In January 1982 the petitioners below, in the belief that their interpretation of the October decision was the correct one, returned to the court of appeals (a) to have their interpretation held to be the correct one, and (b) to have the court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the agency to take actions consistent with that interpretation. The Commission responded that it would welcome a resolution by the court of the ambiguities in the earlier decision, but that a mandamus order would be inappropriate. On February 25, 1982, the court of appeals issued a writ of mandamus for the express purposes of (a) clarifying its mandate by resolving ambiguities in its first decision, and (b) ordering the Commission, under threat of contempt sanctions, to comply with its decision, as clarified, beginning March 8, 1982. Faced with the threat of contempt sanctions, the Commission asked the court below to stay the writ of mandamus pending the agency seeking a writ of certiorari from this Court. The lower court denied that request, on March 9, 1982. The Commission then filed with Supreme Court Associate Justice Byron R. White a petition for a stay of the writ of mandamus pending review on certiorari. By decision of March 29, 1982 Associate Justice White granted the stay request. By this pleading the Interstate Commerce Commission respectfully petitions the Court for a writ of cer |