Whether the ICCTA-preemption-is-a-jurisdictional-issue

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There are various questions being presented to this Court in this Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The first question: The ICCTA Preemption, found in 49 USC § 10501, provides that the Surface Transportation Board is granted exclusive jurisdiction over all matters tending to regulate the movement of trains. Rollins v. Home Depot USA provides that jurisdictional arguments are not forfeited when not raised at the District Court level. As such, the first question posed to this Court is as follows: Whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act’s granting of exclusive jurisdiction to the Surface Transportation Board is a jurisdictional issue, thereby permitting the exception in Rollins to the traditional rule that issues not raised at the District Court level are forfeited. The second question: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Rollins also states that issues that are purely legal in nature are not forfeited when the correlating legal argument is not raised at the District Court level.? Traditionally, matters pertaining to jurisdiction are purely legal, as they are decided by the Courts prior to any presentation of evidence to a judge or jury in a hearing on the merits 1 8 F.4th 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2021). 2 8 F.4th 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2021). ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued of a case. Additionally, summary judgment rulings are reviewed de novo, meaning that the decision is a legal decision, as opposed to a manifest error review which infers that the decision was factual in nature. As such, the second question posed to this Court is as follows: Whether a jurisdictional function of the United States Code reviewed de novo after summary judgment constitutes an issue that is purely legal, thereby permitting the second exception in Rollins to the traditional rule that issues not raised at the District Court level are forfeited. The third question: This Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife stated that a person has legal standing when they have suffered an injury in fact.? Given that defendants have the procedural tool of filing exceptions based on prematurity or lack of procedural capacity, it would follow that petitioner would not be forced to either choose to defend an exception of prematurity or defend a claim that her argument has been forfeited. As such, the third question posed to this Court is as follows: Whether an argument is not raised at the District Court level is deemed forfeited when the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring the subject claim and raise the subject argument until the District Court ruled adversely to plaintiff’s interests. ® 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued The fourth question: Summary Judgment procedure according to Louisiana Law provides that the Court must interpret the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.* Conversely, it is the duty of the judge or jury during a trial of the merits to access the credibility of testimony and evidence and determine the weight to be given to said testimony or evidence. As such, the fourth question posed to this Court is as follows: Whether it is proper for the District Courts and Appellate Courts to access the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight of evidence in a summary judgment proceeding, rather than assessing whether an issue of fact exists. The fifth question: Appellate Courts conduct review of summary judgment proceedings using the de novo review process. Meaning, the Appellate Court looks at the entire presentation of facts, evidence, and law presented to the District Court, and determines the outcome based on that evidence. Options available to the Appellate Court when ruling are to affirm or reverse the decision of the District Court or remand the matter for further 4 Barnett v. Watkins, 970 So.2d 1028, 1033 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007). iv QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued proceedings. As such, the fifth question