Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States
Headline: Court blocks planned Trans Alaska pipeline rate changes, pausing proposed higher charges while the case is reviewed and requiring companies to track and refund any unlawfully collected amounts.
Holding:
- Pauses new Trans Alaska pipeline rates while the Court decides whether to review the case.
- Requires companies to track amounts collected under proposed rates.
- Obliges refunding any amounts later found to be unlawfully collected.
Summary
Background
Companies involved in the Trans Alaska Pipeline System filed rate changes with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which issued an order on June 28, 1977. Those companies asked the Supreme Court to pause the Commission’s order while the Court considers whether to review the matter. The applications were first presented to Justice Powell and then referred to the full Court.
Reasoning
The Court granted the requests to stay—meaning the Commission’s June 28 order will not take effect for now—while the Court finishes deciding whether to hear the case. The stay is conditional: the companies seeking the pause must keep an accounting of amounts collected under the proposed rates as described in the Commission’s order and must agree to refund any portion later found to have been unlawfully collected. The parties were ordered to file a proposed written agreement implementing those conditions within five days.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that the proposed pipeline rates are on hold and will not be charged while the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. If the Court ultimately rejects the rate changes or finds collections unlawful, the companies may have to return money collected during the stay. Because this is a temporary procedural order pending the Court’s further action, the outcome could still change.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes that Justices Stewart and Powell did not take part in considering or deciding this order, a fact that affected who participated in the Court’s action.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?