Opinion ID: 609717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Orders and Actions

Text: 20 It seems obvious that the Secretary's entry into grant agreements with the four pilot states constitutes an order or action within the meaning of § 1653(c). The text itself shows that Congress authorized Hobbs Act review to broadly encompass orders and actions, not merely rules or regulations. It is well-established that orders reviewable under the Hobbs Act include the grant of a license or other benefit, see, e.g., Airporter of Colorado, Inc. v. ICC, 866 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir.1989) (Hobbs Act review of grant of common carrier certificate), and actions is, if anything, broader. See Cousins v. Secretary of Transportation, 880 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1989) (en banc) (§ 1653(c) challenge to DOT's refusal to waive, amend or modify regulation barring deaf persons from driving tractor trailers). The majority cites no indicia of congressional intent in legislative history or otherwise to restrict the ordinary meaning of these terms. Therefore, the fact that petitioners challenge not a federal regulatory program relating to drivers' qualifications, Majority opinion (Maj. op.) at 341 (emphasis in original), but the Secretary's actions in soliciting and approving the four pilot grants, is immaterial under § 1653(c).