Court Opinion

ID: 9425498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:53.641181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.602021
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring in the result.
Although I am in agreement that the legislative history of the Amtrak Act provides a clear and convincing expression of Congress' intent to preclude anyone except the Attorney General and in certain situations an employee or his duly authorized representative from maintaining an action under, the Act against petitioners, I would leave open the question whether a private suit for mandamus under 28 U. S. C. § 1361 might be maintained against the Attorney General if his refusal to act under § 307 — even though within the letter of his authority — went “beyond any rational exercise of discretion.'' United States ex rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, Armed Forces, 403 F. 2d 371, 374 (CA2 1968); see Byse & Fiocca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 and “Nonstatutory'' Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 308, 333-335 (1967).