## Facts

- Union Pacific sought ICC approval to acquire control of Missouri Pacific and Western Pacific; competing railroads and labor unions opposed.
- Missouri–Kansas–Texas Railroad (MKT) and Denver & Rio Grande Western (DRGW) filed responsive trackage-rights applications, indicating they would operate with their own crews.
- In October 1982, the ICC approved the control transactions and granted trackage rights, imposing standard employee-protection conditions (NW–BN–Mendocino), including force-selection and preservation of existing pay, rules, and collective bargaining rights absent agreement.
- Labor unions (BLE and UTU) objected that using tenant-railroad crews on newly served routes violated the employee-protection conditions.
- BLE filed a “petition for clarification” seeking a declaration that the October 1982 approval did not authorize tenant railroads to use their own crews; the ICC denied the request on May 18, 1983, stating no clarification was needed and that approval authorized the proposed operations.
- BLE and UTU filed petitions for reconsideration asserting the ICC had erred and that the crewing arrangements violated the labor-protection conditions; the ICC denied reconsideration on October 25, 1983.
- The unions sought review in the D.C. Circuit; the court of appeals reached the merits and vacated the ICC’s May 18 and October 25 orders.
- The ICC and MKT sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether the unions’ petitions for review of the ICC’s October 25, 1983 order were timely under the Hobbs Act’s 60-day filing period for review of a “final order.”
2. Whether a court of appeals may review an agency’s refusal to reopen or reconsider a prior order when the petition to reopen alleges only “material error” in the original decision, rather than new evidence or changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the petitions for review of the October 25, 1983 order were timely because, under ICC rules for rail proceedings, the order was final upon service and the petitions were filed within 60 days of service.
- The Court held, however, that the October 25 order was not judicially reviewable because it merely denied reconsideration based on alleged error and presented no new evidence or changed circumstances.
- The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and directed dismissal of the petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction to review the refusal to reconsider.

## Legal Principles

- Finality for purposes of starting a statutory review period is distinct from whether an agency action is judicially reviewable.
- An agency’s refusal to reopen or reconsider is subject to judicial review only when the petition to reopen alleges new evidence or changed circumstances; even then, review is limited to whether the refusal was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- When a petition to reopen alleges only “material error” in the original order, denial of reopening is not reviewable because it functions as an untimely challenge to the original order and would allow circumvention of statutory time limits for judicial review.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that although the ICC’s denial of reconsideration was a timely “final order” under the Hobbs Act, it was not reviewable because the unions sought reopening solely to argue error in the earlier decision; courts may not use such refusals to reopen as a vehicle for belated merits review of agency orders.


ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270 (1987)