Court Opinion

ID: 9527042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:27:07.073967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:28.595133
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Although I remain convinced that the Court stumbled badly in Maislin Industries, U S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116 (1990), when it rejected the sensible construction of the Interstate Commerce Act that had been adopted by six Courts of Appeals and the agency responsible for the Act’s enforcement, see id., at 139 (dissenting opinion), I agree with the Court’s disposition of this case. I write only to note that both this case and Maislin involve a carrier in bankruptcy seeking to enforce a “filed” rate that was higher than the one it negotiated with the shipper; in neither case was there any allegation or evidence that a carrier had violated the “core purposes of the Act” by charging discriminatory rates. See ante, at 438; 497 U. S., at 130.