Background
During World War II, it was a common practice of many railroad companies to issue wharfage charges on customers when transporting goods from railroad cars and onto piers, or vice versa. At some point during the war, the United States government (referred to by the Court in its decision as the "Government") took over operating control of a number of piers in Norfolk, Virginia. Instead of using the railroad companies' wharfage services, the Government transferred its cargo to and from piers using its own materials. The Government, not requiring any railroad services apart from transporting the goods to and from the site, requested that it be granted an allowance for the wharfage fees, effectively asking for a refund of fees already paid before the request was made. The railroads refused to make this allowance, prompting the Government to request that the railroads then perform the services themselves, a request which the railroads also denied.
The Government, in turn, filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) against the railroads. In this complaint, the Government argued that, because the railroads had not performed the service that usually called for the wharfage fees, it was, "unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, excessive" for the railroads to exact payment. The complaint went on to request that the ICC declare the railroads' actions as unlawful (claiming that they violated the Interstate Commerce Act ("Act")), and to award the Government damages for the illegal exaction of wharfage fees. The ICC found that the fees imposed upon the Government were not unreasonable or in violation of the Act. The ICC denied reparations and dismissed the Government's complaint.
After the ICC's decision, the United States government sought relief in United States District Court for the District of Columbia to have the decision rescinded. In this complaint, the U.S. Government argued that the ICC's decision was capricious, arbitrary, and based on a misapplication of law. Language in the 28 U.S.C. 46 required that any judicial action taken to set aside a decision of the ICC "shall be brought... against the United States," which effectively meant that the United States was bringing suit against itself. As such, the District Court required the Attorney General to appear in court as both plaintiff and defendant on behalf of the Government. The District Court dismissed the case without addressing the matter in contention, basing their decision on the common law standard that one party cannot bring suit against itself; accordingly, they reasoned, the United States could not bring suit against the United States.
Read more about this topic: United States V. Interstate Commerce Commission
Famous quotes containing the word background:
“They were more than hostile. In the first place, I was a south Georgian and I was looked upon as a fiscal conservative, and the Atlanta newspapers quite erroneously, because they didn’t know anything about me or my background here in Plains, decided that I was also a racial conservative.”
—Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.)
“Pilate with his question “What is truth?” is gladly trotted out these days as an advocate of Christ, so as to arouse the suspicion that everything known and knowable is an illusion and to erect the cross upon that gruesome background of the impossibility of knowledge.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“Silence is the universal refuge, the sequel to all dull discourses and all foolish acts, a balm to our every chagrin, as welcome after satiety as after disappointment; that background which the painter may not daub, be he master or bungler, and which, however awkward a figure we may have made in the foreground, remains ever our inviolable asylum, where no indignity can assail, no personality can disturb us.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)