finding that the plaintiffs’ assertion that a final rule issued by the Federal Railroad Administration would harm chlorine shippers because it gave railroads the opportunity to restrict or eliminate chlorine shipments by mail was too speculative to constitute injury in fact
How later courts described this case
- finding that the plaintiffs’ assertion that a final rule issued by the Federal Railroad Administration would harm chlorine shippers because it gave railroads the opportunity to restrict or eliminate chlorine shipments by mail was too speculative to constitute injury in fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAYANAUGH, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join the Court’s opinion but add a point significant to my resolution of the case. As was discussed at oral argument, the Surface Transportation Board will ensure that chlorine shippers continue to receive common-carrier transportation on railroads when such transportation is reasonably requested. See 49 U.S.C. § 11101 (a) (“A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request.”). When the Board requires a railroad to provide common-carrier service to chlorine shippers, the railroad will have to allow the shipment and, if necessary under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, will have to equip the relevant track with positive train control. With that understanding, I join the judgment and opinion of the Court holding that the Chlorine Institute does not at this time face an actual or imminent injury from the 2012 Final Rule.