Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 240.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 67 (2009) 

79 

Opinion of the Court 

tutional  framework.”  522 F.  3d  746, 750  (2008).  The  court 
observed,  however,  that  “the  essence  of  the  conﬂict  boils 
down to a single question: [I]s written documentation of the 
conference  in  the  on-property  record  a  necessary  prerequi­
site to arbitration before the NRAB?”  Ibid.  It then deter­
mined  that  there  was  no  such  prerequisite:  “[N]o  statute, 
regulation, or CBA,” the court concluded, “required the evi­
dence  [of  conferencing]  to  be  presented  in  the  on-property 
record.”  Id., at 757–758.  But instead of resting its decision 
on  the  Union’s  primary,  statute-based  argument—that  the 
panel  erred  in  ruling  that  it  lacked  jurisdiction  over  the 
cases—the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the 
NRAB’s  proceedings  were  incompatible  with  due  process. 
See id., at 750. 

II 

We  granted  the  Carrier’s  petition  for  certiorari,  555  U. S. 
1169 (2009), which asked us to determine whether a review­
ing  court  may  set  aside  NRAB  orders  for  failure  to  comply 
with  due  process  notwithstanding  the  limited  grounds  for 
review  speciﬁed  in  § 153  First  (q).6  As  earlier  recounted, 
Courts of Appeals have divided on this issue.  See supra, at 
75,  and  n.  4.  Appearing  as  respondent  in  this  Court,  how­
ever,  the  Union  urged  afﬁrmance  of  the  Seventh  Circuit’s 
judgment  on  an  alternative  ground.  Reasserting  the  lead 
argument it had advanced in its petition for court review, see 
supra,  at  78,  the  Union  maintained  that  the  Board  did  not 
“conform, or conﬁne itself, to matters within the scope of [its] 
jurisdiction,”  § 153  First  (q).  Brief  for  Respondent  52–53. 
In  response,  the  Carrier  stated  that  the  Union’s  alternative 
ground “presents a pure question of law that th[e] Court can 
and  should  resolve  without  need  for  remand.”  Reply  Brief 
24, n. 9.  We agree. 

6 Quoted supra, at 75, those grounds are “failure of the division to com­
ply with [RLA] requirements,” “failure of the order to conform, or conﬁne 
itself, to matters within the scope of the division’s jurisdiction,” and “fraud 
or corruption by a member of the division making the order.”