Boyce Motor Lines v. US case brief summary1952
a) Congress
gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to make their own
regulatory rules. They enacted a rule regarding the transportation of
explosives which read as follows:
(1) “Drivers
of motor vehicles transporting an explosive, inflammable liquid,
inflammable compressed gas, or poisonous gas shall avoid, so far as
practicable, and, where feasible, by prearrangement of routes, driving
into or through congested thoroughfares, places where crowds are
assembled, street car tracks, tunnels, viaducts, and dangerous
crossings.”
b) Whoever
“knowingly” violates the statute shall be subject to fines or
imprisonment or both. The ∆ drove a truck with explosives through the
Holland Tunnel, resulting in an explosion that injured about sixty
people. The question was then whether the ICC regulation was a valid
rule. The majority found that the regulation was valid, in light of the
presence of a culpable intent requirement and the fact that the agency
adopted the regulation after much study and consultation with the
trucking industry. The case was then remanded to determine if there were
practicable alternative routes and/or if the driver fulfilled the
element of knowledge. The dissent felt that the regulation was
“unworkable” and “indefinite.”
c) When delegating a crime-making power to an agency, there is a higher degree of notice required
d) This regulation is necessarily vague – there needs to be an element of discretion available for the drivers
(1) There’s also a built in level of discrimination in the prosecution’s choices and the judicial sentencing
No comments:
Post a Comment