The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that a lower court abused its discretion in referring a judicial question to a federal executive agency that was perceived to be “an expert on the subject.”
The Court concluded that the U.S. Congress had never authorized the Surface Transportation Board to determine whether a railroad company qualifies as a “common carrier” in injury cases brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, making the referral a “serious” violation of the separation of powers.
Background
The underlying case concerns Demaree Reed, a switchman for Rail Link, who had his leg amputated after falling from a slow-moving railcar. The incident occurred at the railyard of an INEOS chemical facility in Harris County.
Rail Link is a contracted industrial rail services company that handles on-site rail switching—the process of moving, sorting, and assembling railcars within a yard.
Reed filed a lawsuit against Rail Link for negligence and gross negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging his injuries were caused by the company’s failures to establish adequate safety policies.
FELA was passed by Congress in 1908 to allow railroad workers to be fairly compensated for injuries sustained on the job. Before the law’s passage, death statistics among railroad workers were appalling, with a brakeman living only about six years after their hiring date.
Rail Link asserted that FELA is inapplicable, as the company is a contractor rather than a “common carrier by railroad,” as the law requires.
Judge Elaine Palmer referred the question as to Rail Link’s common carrier status under FELA to the Surface Transportation Board (STB)—an executive agency created by Congress in 1996 to have jurisdiction over certain railroad-related disputes.
Upon being ordered by Judge Palmer to submit this question to the STB, Rail Link instead asked the board whether it qualified as a common carrier under a different federal statute—the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995—rather than under FELA.
The Appeal
Meanwhile, Reed filed a petition for mandamus relief, seeking relief from the trial court’s referral order. He argued that the board did not have jurisdiction over such matters in the first place. The board halted its proceeding while Reed’s petition was pending.
A divided First Court of Appeals in Houston denied relief on the grounds that Reed did not challenge the board’s expertise and that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in making the referral.
Justice Peter Kelly dissented, instead concluding that the STB “is a rate-setting body, and it does not have jurisdiction to determine common-carrier status for tort liability under FELA.”
Reed appealed the court of appeals’ decision to the Supreme Court of Texas. Oral arguments were heard on February 12.
The Ruling
On June 19, the Court released its decision, ultimately agreeing with Reed that the STB had not been granted jurisdiction to determine whether an entity qualifies as a common carrier under FELA, meaning the trial court abused its discretion by referring the question to the board.
The Court’s ruling emphasized the seriousness of upholding the separation of powers among the branches, noting that federal agencies only have the power to act when Congress grants it.
“Occasionally, the relevant legislative body grants jurisdiction to an agency to resolve matters that otherwise would be decided by a court,” wrote Justice Rebeca Huddle. “But such shared jurisdiction is uncommon.”
When a court is considering whether to refer a judicial question to an agency, it must first determine if the legislature has clearly authorized that agency to answer the question at issue.
“Absent a clear legislative grant of jurisdiction to the agency on the relevant question, a Texas court cannot refer the question, even though the court may regard the agency as an expert on the subject matter and desire the agency’s input,” Justice Huddle continued.
In reviewing the matter, the Court determined that no such jurisdiction had been granted to the STB.
“While Congress accorded the Board jurisdiction over some disputes relating to railroads, there is no clear jurisdictional grant empowering the Board to answer the question the parties presented to the trial court,” the opinion concluded. “The trial court thus abused its discretion by issuing the referral order. We conditionally grant mandamus relief.”
The Supreme Court of Texas then directed the trial court to vacate its referral order and make its own determination as to whether Rail Link qualifies as a common carrier.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
