Court Opinion

ID: 9473672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:36:31.546319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:40.630138
License: Public Domain

CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
During the pendency of this case before this Court, Rumm Associates, Inc. (Rumm) was granted a new, broader permit by the Interstate Commerce Commission. As a result, Rumm is now performing its services as a contract carrier under the new permit. I believe that the issuance of this broader permit renders the petition before this Court moot. See Steere Tank Lines, Inc. v. ICC, 667 F.2d 490 (5th Cir.1982) (ICC’s granting of broader permit rendered moot challenge to old permit).
In order to have a justiciable controversy under Article III, a court must be able to affect the legal relations of the parties before it. E.g., North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam); Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). The decision of the majority af*224firming the position of the ICC has no impact upon any of the parties before this. Court. Petitioners Noble Graham Transport, Inc. and American Trucking Associations, Inc. are currently being injured, if at all, by Rumm’s activities under the new permit. Similarly, the ICC has no interest which will be vindicated by affirming the original permit. Therefore, since neither of the parties will be affected by the majority’s decision, I believe that this ease is moot.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.