408
Syllabus
denied rehearing, holding that the condemnation was not valid because the property was not "required for intercity rail passenger service."
Held: 1. The ICC's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation and application of § 562(d). Pp. 417-424. (a) The ICC's interpretation of the word "required" is due deference as a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous term in a statute that the ICC administers. See, e. g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837. The existence of alternative dictionary definitions for "required" indicates that the statute is open to interpretation. The ICC's interpretation gives effect to § 562(d)'s presumption of need. In contrast, the Court of Appeals' view—that "required" establishes a separate condition that Amtrak's condemnation authority is limited to property that is indispensable to its operations—is in clear tension with the presumption. In addition, § 562(d)'s amendment confirms the ICC's definition, while the Court of Appeals' strict rule would make the amendment superfluous by barring condemnation whenever Amtrak's purpose is to reconvey property. Pp. 417-420. (b) The ICC was not required to make specific findings regarding Amtrak's actual need for the condemnation because its oversight responsibility is limited to ensuring that condemned property will be used in Amtrak's rail operations. The statute's structure and its presumption of need create a strong inference that it authorizes Amtrak to make a reasonable business judgment that condemnation is advisable, unless the statutory presumption is rebutted. Pp. 420-421. (c) B&M's several arguments against the ICC's interpretation are rejected. The eminent domain power has been given to the ICC, not a private entity, and thus is not limited as suggested by cases such as United States v. Carmack, 329 U. S. 230, 243, n. 13. Furthermore, these cases turn on the need for deference to the ICC, not to Amtrak. The ICC's interpretation of § 562(d) also did not violate the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, since the ICC's determination that the condemnation will serve a public purpose by facilitating Amtrak's rail service was not irrational. See, e. g., Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 240-241. Moreover, the ICC did not err in concluding that the statutory prerequisite that the parties were "unable to agree upon terms for the sale" mandated nothing more than a factual determination that they would be unable to reach agreement through further negotiations. Nor did it make inadequate factual findings in concluding that B&M had not rebutted the presumption of need. The ICC was not unreasonable in consid-
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007