Court: Scrutiny of truckers out of bounds

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 11, 2001) — The U.S. Court of Appeals last week ruled that the Inspector General of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation stepped outside the bounds of the law when he launched criminal investigations against trucking companies that were the focus of compliance reviews.

When the Inspector General investigated trucking companies and used armed agents in unannounced raids to seize company records, the Court said, he “involved himself in a routine agency investigation that was designed to determine whether individual trucking companies were complying with federal motor carrier safety regulations. This was beyond his authority.”

The Court called “substantial and well documented” the claims of five trucking companies in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Arizona that their businesses were hurt when their offices were raided and records seized. Anthony J. McMahon, the attorney representing the companies, said the Dept. of Transportation issued press releases after the raids and the publicity hurt the companies’ reputations and drove away customers. In addition, the unanticipated seizing of business records left the companies unable to prepare customer invoices, which immediately reduced the companies’ income, and also left them unable to pay drivers, resulting in drivers leaving without an ability to replace them.

In 1998 when the raids occurred, the controlling law was the Inspector General Act of 1978, which created the offices of inspectors general in federal agencies and outlined their duties. Under that law, the Court said, “the Inspector General had no authority to engage in the kinds of criminal investigations at issue here.”

“The IG has the authority to investigate DOT’s administration of programs and operations,” the Court said in its opinion. “The IG, however, is not authorized to conduct investigations as part of enforcing motor carrier safety regulations.”

In the aftermath of the companies’ legal challenge, Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 at DOT’s request, which was intended to clarify the Inspector General’s authority. The Court, in today’s opinion, declined to comment on that legislation, saying there are no cases before it based on that law. The Court did, however, reverse the lower court decision that the 1999 Act gave the Inspector General new authority.

The court challenge was mounted by Truckers United for Safety (TUFS), a member organization created to represent trucking companies on safety and regulatory issues. The full text of the decision (TUFS v. Meade) may be downloaded at www.cadc.uscourts.gov.