49 U.S.C. § 20114

Judicial procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Criminal Contempt.—In a trial for criminal contempt for violating an injunction or restraining order issued under this chapter, the violation of which is also a violation of this chapter, the defendant may demand a jury trial. The defendant shall be tried as provided in rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (18 App. U.S.C.).(b)Subpenas For Witnesses.—A subpena for a witness required to attend a district court of the United States in an action brought under this chapter may be served in any judicial district.(c)Review of Agency Action.—Except as provided in section 20104(c) of this title, a proceeding to review a final action of the Secretary of Transportation under this part or, as applicable to railroad safety, chapter 51 or 57 of this title shall be brought in the appropriate court of appeals as provided in chapter 158 of title 28.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 870.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
20114(a)	45:439(b).	Oct. 16, 1970, Pub. L. 91–458, §§ 209(d), 210(b), 84 Stat. 975, 976.
20114(b)	45:438(d).
20114(c)	45:431(f).	Oct. 16, 1970, Pub. L. 91–458, § 202(f), 84 Stat. 972; restated Sept. 3, 1992, Pub. L. 102–365, § 5(a)(1), 106 Stat. 975.

In subsection (a), the words “the defendant may demand a jury trial” are substituted for “trial shall be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (b), the words “may be served in any judicial district” are substituted for “may run into any other district” for clarity.

In subsection (c), the words “a final action of the Secretary” are substituted for “Any final agency action taken by the Secretary” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “this part or, as applicable to railroad safety, chapter 51 or 57 of this title” are substituted for “this subchapter or under any of the other Federal railroad safety laws, as defined in section 441(e) of this title” because of the restatement. The words “is subject to judicial review as provided in chapter 7 of title 5” are omitted as unnecessary because 5:ch. 7 applies unless otherwise stated. The words “by and in the manner prescribed” are omitted as surplus.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. FRA, 972 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. FRA, 972 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “See 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c); see also 28 U.S.C.”

Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “all final agency actions described in [ 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c) ].” 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (7) (emphasis added).”

Nuclear Info. & Resource Serv. v. United States Dep't of Transp. Rsch. & Special Programs Admin., 457 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “The district court held that the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c), which provides that any proceeding to review a final action of the Secretary of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), “as applicable to…”

Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 480 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D.D.C. 2007). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c); 28 U.S.C. § 22342 (7).”

Nuclear Info. & Resource Serv. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 457 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2006). “12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c), which the district court granted.”

Transp. Div. of the Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Tranportation Workers v. FRA, 10 F.4th 869 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “§ 2342 (7) (providing courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review “all final agency actions described in” 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c), which includes final actions of the Secretary of Transportation regarding railroad safety).”

Transp. Div. of the Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers v. FRA, 40 F.4th 646 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “The Unions timely petitioned for review, arguing that the Final Rule (i) disregarded the Administration’s statutory mandate to prioritize safety, (ii) deprived them of an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the rule, and (iii) was untimely issued.”

Smith v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 398 F. App'x 601 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The Administrator found that Smith had not: (1) demonstrated excusable neglect for his failure to respond to the Board’s request for documents; (2) presented his objections to the request for documents before the Board; or (3) produced the required documents in compliance with…”

Carpenter v. Mineta, 432 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). “II The FRA Administrator’s decision to affirm the presiding officer constituted final agency action.”

Smeltzer v. Slater, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 2000). “49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c). Therefore, since the Hobbs Act is included in chapter 158 of the title 28 of the U.”

Indiana Rail Road Co., The v. Illinois Com. Comm'n (N.D. Ill. 2020). “Section 20114(c) in turn requires that “a proceeding to review a final action of the Secretary of Transportation under this part … shall be brought in the appropriate court of appeals …” 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c). In the multi-layered labyrinth of the United States Code, the…”

DeFries v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (D. Or. 2025). “” 49 U.S.C. § 20114 (c). C. Motion for Summary Judgment A party is entitled to summary judgment if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.