Cite as: 513 U. S. 374 (1995)
Syllabus
ute provides that it "will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government," 84 Stat. 1330; see also 45 U. S. C. § 541. Pp. 386-391. (d) Although § 541 is assuredly dispositive of Amtrak's governmental status for purposes of matters within Congress's control—e. g., whether it is subject to statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act—and can even suffice to deprive it of all those inherent governmental powers and immunities that Congress has the power to eliminate—e. g., sovereign immunity from suit—it is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak's status as a Government entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions. The Constitution constrains governmental action by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken, Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346-347, and under whatever congressional label, Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United States, 327 U. S. 536, 539. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 410, and National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 470 U. S. 451, 470, distinguished. Pp. 392-394. (e) Amtrak is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the Constitution. This conclusion accords with the public, judicial, and congressional understanding over the years that Government-created and -controlled corporations are part of the Government itself. See, e. g., Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 312 U. S. 81, 83; Government Corporation Control Act, § 304(a), 59 Stat. 602. A contrary holding would allow government to evade its most solemn constitutional obligations by simply resorting to the corporate form, cf. Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230, 231. Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, 907, 908, and Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 152, distinguished. Pp. 394-399.
12 F. 3d 388, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 400.
David D. Cole argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were R. Bruce Rich and Gloria C. Phares.
375
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007