AMERICAN BUS ASS'N v. Rogoff
649 F.3d 734
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Federal Transit Act's Charter Rule bars charter bus service outside the urban area; FTA can investigate violations and adjust funding; regulations permit advisory opinions and cease-and-desist actions; challenged Murray Amendment restricts enforcement for King County Metro (KCM) during FY2010 and beyond; KCM had provided Mariners game charter service for years and faced loss of federal funds when the Charter Rule was clarified in 2008; 2009 saw no charter service to Mariners games, prompting Senator Murray to propose the amendment; district court held the amendment unconstitutional on Petition Clause and equal protection grounds; the FTA and challengers appealed, and a stay was issued pending appeal.
- IssuesCount5OrFewerOrLessButClearerIfStated
- NA
- NA
- NA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Murray Amendment burden the Petition Clause? | ABA/UMA argue it bars meaningful petition relief. | Government argues amendment blocks only enforcement funding, not petitions or agency responses. | Not a violation; petition rights not denied; remedy scope limited by funding restriction. |
| Does Murray Amendment violate equal protection? | ABA/UMA claim unequal treatment by singling out private operators in Seattle. | Regulatory rational basis tied to legitimate goals (access, costs, congestion) despite not facially broad. | Passes rational-basis review; rational link between disparity and legitimate goals established. |
| Are due process or separation-of-powers concerns implicated? | Argue procedural due process and separation of powers violations by Congress reducing agency enforcement. | Legislative process valid; Congress may withdraw enforcement authority prospectively; no separation-of-powers violation. | No due process or separation-of-powers violation; legislative withdrawal permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- News Am. Publ'g, Inc. v. FCC, 844 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (petitioner burden under First Amendment not applied to petition remedies in all contexts)
- We the People Found., Inc. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Petition Clause does not guarantee government response to petitions)
- Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1984) (government need not listen or respond to communications)
- Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (appropriations rider restricting statutory authority did not violate First Amendment)
- Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1983) (government interference with remedies under law vis-a-vis court actions)
- NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1963) (speech rights; not all government actions restricting legal challenges violate equal protection)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (rational-basis review allows broad generalizations for classifications)
- Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1972) (Baseball acknowledged as pervasive; context of government action)
- Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1985) (due process in legislative process guidance)
- Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (U.S. 2000) (legislative changes to enforcement do not violate due process)