## Facts

- Congress created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to provide intercity passenger rail service and directed it to pursue public transportation objectives while receiving ongoing federal financial support.
- The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) § 207 required Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to jointly develop performance metrics and minimum standards for passenger rail service quality, including on-time performance and delays attributable to host freight railroads.
- The metrics and standards could affect freight railroads because inadequate on-time performance could trigger Surface Transportation Board (STB) investigations and potential remedies against host carriers.
- The Association of American Railroads (AAR), representing freight railroads, challenged § 207 and the resulting standards, arguing Congress improperly gave regulatory power to a private, self-interested entity (Amtrak).
- The district court upheld § 207; the D.C. Circuit reversed, treating Amtrak as private and finding an unconstitutional delegation of regulatory authority.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the scheme was unconstitutional on the theory that Amtrak is a private entity exercising governmental regulatory power.

## Issues

1. Whether Amtrak should be treated as a private corporation or a governmental entity when evaluating the constitutionality of PRIIA § 207’s joint development of binding performance metrics and standards.
2. Whether statutory language describing Amtrak as not a federal agency controls the constitutional classification inquiry for separation-of-powers purposes.
3. What issues, if any, remained for resolution on remand after determining Amtrak’s governmental status for the challenged standards.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that, for purposes of evaluating the validity of PRIIA § 207’s metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity rather than a private actor.
- The Court rejected reliance on statutory labels as dispositive and required an independent constitutional inquiry into Amtrak’s relationship with the federal government.
- The Court left open additional constitutional challenges for consideration on remand, including nondelegation, due process, and Appointments Clause-related questions tied to the statutory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Congressional characterization of an entity as “not an agency” does not control constitutional analysis; courts must independently assess governmental status based on structure, control, and function.
- An entity created by the federal government, substantially controlled by politically accountable branches (including presidential appointment and removal constraints), tasked with public objectives, and dependent on federal support may be treated as governmental for separation-of-powers review.
- Treating a regulated actor as governmental for the challenged action can defeat a claim that Congress impermissibly delegated regulatory authority to a private party, while preserving other constitutional objections for separate analysis.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Amtrak’s creation, federal control, public mandates, and financial dependence require treating it as governmental when assessing PRIIA § 207 performance standards, so the D.C. Circuit’s private-delegation holding could not stand; the case was remanded to address remaining constitutional challenges.


Dep't of Transp. v. Ass'n of Am. R.Rs., 575 U.S. 43 (2015)