CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

   RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CROSS-PETITIONERS V.
CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL.

   No. 88-1706, No. 88-1874

   In the Supreme Court of the United States

   October Term, 1988

   On Petition and Cross-Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

   Memorandum for the United States

   1.  The Chicago & North Western Transportation Company (C&NW) and
the FRVR Corporation (FRVR) are, respectively, the seller and
purchaser of a rail line.  The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
authorized their transaction, pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act,
49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., through the ICC's "Ex parte No. 392"
procedures.  /1/ Shortly thereafter, C&NW and FRVR filed a petition
with the ICC seeking a declaratory order "clarifying" the ICC's
jurisdiction over labor issues arising from the transaction, including
whether its authorization of the transaction "displaces" the
collective bargaining provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.
151 et seq., and the anti-injunction provisions of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (Pet. 3).  The Railway
Labor Executives' Association (RLEA), which represents various railway
labor interests, opposed the petition.

   The ICC issued a decision essentially declaring that the Interstate
Commerce Act preempts the provisions of the Railway Labor Act and the
consummate an ICC-authorized transaction.  Pet. App. 4a-23a.  See id.
at 14a-17a, 18a.  The RLEA then sought judicial review of the ICC's
order in the court of appeals pursuant to the Administrative Orders
Review Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq. (also known as the Hobbs Act).  The
United States, which is a statutory respondent in such cases (see 28
U.S.C. 2344, 2348), filed a statement indicating that it neither
supported nor opposed the ICC order under review.

   The court of appeals held that "it is for this Court, not the
Commission, to decide whether the Railway Labor Act and the
Norris-LaGuardia Act must be accommodated to the authority of the
Commission under section 10901 of the Interstate Commerce Act" (Pet.
App. 2a-3a).  The court explained that it had recently issued a
decision holding that "while the Railway Labor Act must be
accommodated" to the ICC's authority to impose labor protective
conditions, "there is 'no inherent incompatibility' between the recent
deregulatory efforts of Congress and the ICC and the continued
viability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act" (id. at 2a).  See Burington
Northern R.R. v. United Transp. Union, 848 F.2d 856 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 109 S. Ct. 499 (1988).  The court of appeals accordingly
affirmed the ICC's decision, but only to the extent that the decision
was consistent with the court's prior opinion.  See Pet. App. 2a-3a,
24a-25a.

   2.  C&NW and FRVR petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to
review the court of appeals' ruling that the ICC's authorization of a
rail line acquisition does not relieve the courts of the provisions of
the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibiting injunctions in cases involving
labor disputes.  Their petition presents a question that is identical
to the question presented in Pittsburg & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway
Labor Executives' Ass'n, No. 87-1589 (argued Mar. 29, 1989).  We
accordingly submit that the petition and RLEA's related cross-petition
should be held and disposed of in light of this Court's resolution of
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., supra.

   Respectfully submitted.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   JUNE 1989

   /1/ See Ex parte No. 392 (Sub. No. 1) -- Class Exemption for the
Acquisition and Operation of Rail Lines Under 49 U.S.C. 10901, 1
I.C.C. 2d 810 (1985), aff'd sub nom. Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. ICC,
817 F.2d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1987).