US Supreme Court to hear cases on Congressional war powers, arbitration, trains News
© WikiMedia (US Capitol)
US Supreme Court to hear cases on Congressional war powers, arbitration, trains

The US Supreme Court Wednesday granted certiorari to three new cases concerning Congress’s war powers, arbitration, and the Locomotive Inspection Act. These cases are Torres v. Department of SafetyViking River Cruises v. Moriana, and Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad.

The issue in Torres v. Department of Safety is whether the Congressional war powers under the US constitution allows them to authorize suits against nonconsenting states. Former state trooper Torres resigned from his job with the Texas Department of Safety when the department would not provide accommodations for a condition he developed from his military service.

Torres then brought suit against the state under the Uniform Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act. This act allows military members to sue to remedy employment discrimination based on their service. In 2018, a Texas state court ruled that the law was an unconstitutional abridgment of state’s sovereign immunity.

In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the Supreme Court will consider whether bilateral arbitration agreements that prevent employees from from raising representative claims are required to be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act. Former sales representative Angie Moriana sued her employer Viking River Cruises under the California Private Attorneys General Act. Under this law, employees can seek compensation for state labor law violations on behalf of themselves and others.

When she started working for Viking River Cruises, Moriana signed an agreement to individually arbitrate any claims that might arise. But the California state court determined that the agreement could not be enforced under state law.

The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari to other arbitration cases for the term. In November, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to another case concerning arbitration clause waivers in contract disputes.

Finally, the issue in Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad is whether a locomotive is considered “in use” and subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act when it has temporarily stopped in a railyard as part of its interstate journey. A railroad conductor slipped, fell, and injured himself while preparing a locomotive for departure. The Seventh Circuit determined that the locomotive was not “in use,” and therefore the Locomotive Inspection Act did not apply.

The last time that the Supreme Court considered the Locomotive Inspection Act was in 2012, when the court ruled in Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. that the act preempts state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims because these claims fall within the field of locomotive equipment regulation preempted by the act.

The cases will likely be heard in the spring term.