| Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 7, 1994 Decided February 21, 1995 | |
| Full case name | Michael A. Lebron, Petitioner v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation |
| Citations | 513U.S.374 (more) 115 S. Ct. 961; 130L. Ed. 2d 902; 1995U.S. LEXIS 909; 63 U.S.L.W. 4109; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1228; 95 Daily Journal DAR 2219; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 564 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ ofcert. to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Amtrak is a government actor for the purposes of theFirst Amendment and is subject to its provisions. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. I | |
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U.S. 374 (1995), is aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held thatAmtrak is a government agency and is thus subject to theFirst Amendment. The Court issued its decision in a 8–1 vote, with seven justices joining the majority opinion authored byAntonin Scalia. The lone dissent came from JusticeSandra Day O'Connor.
Michael A. Lebron, an artist known for creating political billboard displays, rented a large billboard in Amtrak'sPenn Station. The advertisement was highly critical of theCoors Brewing Company for their support of theContras in Nicaragua. The railroad turned down the ad because it was political, and they said they have a general policy against political advertisements, although the particular point of view was not an issue.
The District Court ruled that Amtrak, because of its close ties to the federal government, was a government actor for First Amendment purposes, and that its rejection of the display was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, noting that Amtrak was, by the terms of the legislation that created it, not a government entity, and concluding that the government was not so involved with Amtrak that the latter's decisions could be considered federal action.[1]
JusticeAntonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the majority. JusticeSandra Day O'Connor dissented.
The Supreme Court first considers a complex line of jurisprudence concerning the circumstances under which the actions of a private entity may be attributed to the state for constitutional purposes, citing precedents such asBurton v. Wilmington Parking Authority. It notes the inconsistency in this area of law, as observed in Justice O'Connor's dissent inEdmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.. The Court suggests, however, that it may not need to navigate these nuances in the present case because the petitioner, Lebron, advances a more straightforward contention: that Amtrak is not a private entity whose actions are occasionally deemed governmental, but is itself "Government itself."
Before assessing the merits of this argument, the Court addresses a procedural question: whether it is proper to consider Lebron's claim of Amtrak's governmental status at all, given that he did not raise it in the District Court or the Court of Appeals. In those forums, Lebron expressly disavowed this position. It was only after the Supreme Court granted certiorari that Lebron, in his merits brief, explicitly presented the alternative argument that Amtrak constituted a federal entity.
The Court resolves this procedural issue by the traditional rule articulated in cases likeYee v. City of Escondido: once a federal claim is properly presented, a party is not confined to the precise arguments made below but may advance any argument in support of that claim. The Court concludes that Lebron's contention about Amtrak's status is not a new claim—his consistent claim has been that Amtrak violated his First Amendment rights—but rather a new legal argument in support of that existing claim.
Amtrak was created by a special act of Congress specifically to achieve federal policy objectives under the direction and control of Presidential appointees. Based on its origins, structure, and purpose, the Court found that the public and private entities functioned together to the point where Amtrak was covered by theFirst Amendment.
Later, inDepartment of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, the court held that Amtrak is a governmental entity for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This section is empty. You can help byadding to it.(January 2026) |
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRehnquist Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |