- Legal Expert News
- Law Firm News
- Career News
- Headline Legal News
- Legal Trend News
- Legal Business
- Local Court News
- Court Watch
- Legal Interview
- Topics in Legal News
- Press Release
- Politics & Legal
- Market News
- Constitutionality of murder conviction upheld by high court
- Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
- Clicking 'checkout' could cost more after Supreme Court case
- Supreme Court rejects anti-abortion pastor's appeal on noise
- Supreme Court hearing case about online sales tax collection
- Another key redistricting case goes in front of high court
- Court: Mexican family can't sue agent in cross-border death
- Supreme Court limits reach of tax crime statute
- Cambodian court denies opposition leader release on bail
- Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud
U.S. Customs and Border Protection found 47 cases of illegal narcotics seized at checkpoints in California, Arizona and Texas. In each case, the Border Patrol found illegal drugs on a train bound for the United States from a Mexican railroad.
Though the trains were ultimately headed to Union Pacific customers, the railroad company claims that it should not have to pay the $37.7 million in proposed penalties against it, because the drugs were found before the railroad cars ever came into Union Pacific's possession.
"At all times prior to the discovery of the illegal narcotics, either the Mexican railroad operating the train of (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) had exclusive control of the trains in which they were found," the plaintiff claims.
It rejects the defendant's assertion that Union Pacific failed to exercise the "highest degree of care and diligence" to ensure drugs were not smuggled on its trains. Union Pacific points out that it owns no railroad facilities in Mexico, and cannot hire, supervise or direct the railroad employees across the border.
The government improperly applied the Tariff Act of 1930 in assessing fines against Union Pacific, the lawsuit claims.
"The Tariff Act does not obligate (Union Pacific) to enter Mexico and conduct extraterrestrial inspections," the railroad claims, "and to do so would require (Union Pacific) to take extraordinarily dangerous and costly measures that the United States itself has found too dangerous and/or futile to undertake."
The risk of setting up security operations in Mexico would expose the plaintiff and its employees "to the risks of murder and mayhem at the hands of Mexican drug cartels, while at the same time potentially running afoul of Mexican law," the lawsuit states.
And it would accomplish nothing, the railroad claims.
"If (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) and the full power of the United States government cannot effectively seize drugs in Mexico, there is no reason to believe that (Union Pacific) could.
Legal News Media
Legal News is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of the site at any time. Your This site is solely for your personal use. You are, of course, welcome to print or otherwise copy material from this site for your personal use. However, you may not distribute, exchange, modify, sell or transmit anything you copy from this Site, including but not limited to any text, images, audio and video, for any business, commercial or public purpose. Any unauthorized use of the text, images, audio and video may violate copyright laws, trademark laws, the laws of privacy and publicity and civil and criminal statutes.