Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corporation v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission

by Byron White

United States Supreme Court

393 U.S. 186

Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp.  v.  Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

No. 19.  Argued: October 21-22, 1968 --- Decided: Nov 25, 1968

Respondent Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (WMATC) sued to enjoin petitioner, a concessionaire under contract with the Secretary of the Interior, from operating "minibus" guided tours of the Mall, a park area in the center of Washington, D.C., without obtaining from WMATC a certificate of convenience and necessity. The WMATC concedes the Secretary's substantial powers over the Mall under specific authority dating from 1898 and as part of the national park lands over which he has broad statutory jurisdiction. WMATC contends, however, that the interstate compact under which it was established to centralize responsibility over mass transit service in the Washington metropolitan area implicitly limits the Secretary's power to contract for provision of tour services by a concessionaire uncertified by WMATC. WMATC-certified carriers furnishing mass transit and sightseeing services in Washington, including D.C. Transit System, Inc., which contends that its franchise also limits the Secretary's power, intervened as plaintiffs. The District Court dismissed the suit and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Held:

1. When Congress established the WMATC, it did not intend to create dual regulatory jurisdiction by divesting the Secretary of the Interior of his long-standing "exclusive charge and control" over the Mall, and the WMATC is without authority to require that petitioner obtain from it a certificate of convenience and necessity. Pp. 189-194.

2. D.C. Transit's franchise, which protects it from competition by an uncertified bus line transporting passengers over a given route on a fixed schedule in areas under WMATC jurisdiction, does not protect it against competition from petitioner's leisurely sightseeing service on the Mall outside WMATC jurisdiction. Pp. 194-196.

Reversed and remanded.

Jeffrey L. Nagin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Allen E. Susman and Ralph S. Cunningham, Jr.

Russell W. Cunningham argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission. Manuel J. Davis argued the cause for respondent D.C. Transit System, Inc. With him on the brief was Samuel M. Langerman.

Assistant Attorney General Martz argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., S. Billingsley Hill, and Thomas L. McKevitt.

Notes