PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 399.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Nov 30, 2010
Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 - Amends the Clayton Act to remove an exemption from coverage under the federal antitrust laws with respect to mergers and acquisitions involving rail carriers. Removes from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the authority to enforce federal antitrust laws with respect to rail carriers (thus vesting such authority in the federal antitrust agencies). Removes: (1) the prohibition against a private party seeking injunctive relief against a rail carrier for a violation of the antitrust laws; and (2) the rail carrier exemption from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibition against unfair methods of competition.
Amends federal transportation law to terminate the exemptions from antitrust laws for rail carriers, including mergers and acquisitions and ratemaking agreements. Requires the STB, when reviewing a proposed rate agreement, to take into account its impact upon shippers, consumers, and affected communities, and to make findings regarding such impact, which shall be made part of the administrative record.
Makes federal antitrust laws applicable to rail carriers regardless of whether the carrier filed a rail carrier rate or whether a complaint challenging a rate is filed. Provides that, in any civil action against a rail carrier, the U.S. district court shall retain the discretion to defer to the jurisdiction of the STB.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth an effective date for this Act as the date of enactment, but provides a 180-day grace period for conduct that was exempted under the antitrust laws before such date of enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 399.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-669, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-669, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Judiciary
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.233 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.233 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.233 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.233 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.