Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a federal agency’s statutory mandate to hold a “hearing” for rulemaking does not automatically trigger formal, trial-type procedures. Written submissions can satisfy the hearing requirement for broad, legislative-type rules affecting an entire industry.
Legal Significance: This case established a strong presumption in favor of informal, notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), narrowly interpreting the statutory language required to trigger more burdensome formal hearing procedures.
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
To address a chronic national freight car shortage, Congress amended the Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to establish “incentive per diem” charges for railroads using cars owned by other lines. The Act required the ICC to set these rates “after hearing.” The ICC initiated a rulemaking proceeding, collecting data and issuing a tentative order. It then invited all interested parties, including the appellee railroads, to submit written “verified statements of facts, briefs, and statements of position.” The railroads requested a formal oral hearing, which the ICC denied. The ICC then issued a final order establishing the incentive rates based on the written record. The Florida East Coast Railway Co. and another railroad sued, arguing the ICC’s refusal to hold an oral, trial-type hearing violated the Interstate Commerce Act and the formal hearing provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 557. The District Court agreed with the railroads and set aside the order.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a statute requiring an agency to act “after hearing” in a rulemaking proceeding trigger the formal, trial-type hearing procedures of §§ 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act, or can the requirement be satisfied by informal, notice-and-comment procedures under § 553?
The Court held that the ICC was not required to conduct a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a statute requiring an agency to act “after hearing” in a rulemaking proceeding trigger the formal, trial-type hearing procedures of §§ 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act, or can the requirement be satisfied by informal, notice-and-comment procedures under § 553?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrowed the circumstances under which agencies must use formal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
The phrase "after hearing" in a federal statute, without more, does not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Analysis
Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, distinguished between adjudicative and rulemaking proceedings. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The statutory phrase “after hearing” in an agency’s organic statute does