Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 236

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

75 

Opinion of the Court 

tained  a  monetary  award  against  a  carrier  could  sue  to  en­
force  it,  and  the  court  could  either  enforce  the  award  or  set 
it  aside.  Price,  360  U. S.,  at  616;  45  U. S. C.  § 153  First 
(p) (1934 ed.).  In addition to that limited role, some Courts 
of Appeals,  we noted  in Price,  reviewed awards  “claimed to 
result from a denial of due process of law.”  360 U. S., at 616 
(citing Ellerd v.  Southern Paciﬁc R. Co., 241 F. 2d 541 (CA7 
1957); Barnett v.  Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, 245 
F. 2d 579, 582 (CA3 1957)). 

In 1966, Congress again amended the scheme, this time to 
state  grounds  on  which  both  employees  and  railroads  could 
seek judicial review of NRAB orders.  The governing provi­
sion,  still  in  force,  allows  parties  aggrieved  by  an  NRAB 
panel  order  to  petition  for  court  review.  45  U. S. C.  § 153 
First (q) (2006 ed.).  The provision instructs that 

“[o]n  such  review,  the  ﬁndings and  order  of  the  division 
shall  be  conclusive  on  the  parties,  except  that  the 
order  .  .  .  may  be  set  aside,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  re­
manded  .  .  .  ,  for  failure  of  the  division  to  comply  with 
the  requirements  of  [the  RLA],  for  failure  of  the  order 
to conform, or conﬁne itself, to matters within the scope 
of  the  division’s  jurisdiction,  or  for  fraud  or  corruption 
by a member of the division making the order.” 

Courts  of  Appeals  have  divided  on  whether  this  provision 
precludes judicial review of NRAB proceedings for due proc­
ess  violations.  Compare,  e. g.,  Shaﬁi  v.  PLC  British  Air­
ways, 22 F. 3d 59, 64 (CA2 1994) (review available), and Edel­
man v.  Western Airlines, Inc., 892 F. 2d 839, 847 (CA9 1989) 
(same), with Kinross v.  Utah R. Co., 362 F. 3d 658, 662 (CA10 
2004) (review precluded).4 

4 The  disagreement  stems  from  this  Court’s  per  curiam  opinion  in 
Union  Paciﬁc R.  Co.  v.  Sheehan,  439 U. S.  89  (1978).  That case  involved 
an NRAB decision turning on a time limitation contained in the governing 
CBA.  Based on that limitation, the Board dismissed an employee’s claim. 
The  Tenth  Circuit  remanded  the  case  to  the  NRAB  on  the  ground  that 
the Board had failed to consider the employee’s equitable tolling argument