kawasaki kisen kaisha ltd et al corp et argued march decided june respondents cargo owners delivered petitioners line goods shipping china inland destinations line issued four bills lading bills lading covering ocean inland portions transport single document relevant bills contain himalaya clause extends bills defenses liability limitations subcontractors permit line subcontract complete journey provide entire journey governed carriage goods sea act cogsa regulates bills lading issued ocean carriers engaged foreign trade designate tokyo venue dispute line arranged journey subcontracting petitioner union pacific rail shipment cargo shipped line vessels california loaded onto union pacific train derailment along inland route allegedly destroyed cargo ultimately federal district granted motion union pacific line dismiss cargo owners suits based parties tokyo clause ninth circuit reversed concluding clause trumped carmack amendment governing bills lading issued domestic rail carriers applied inland portion shipment held carmack amendment apply shipment originating overseas single bill lading parties agreement litigate cases tokyo binding pp cogsa line union pacific contend governs cases requires carrier issue cargo owner bill containing specified terms limit parties ability adopt clauses applies shipments ports foreign ports vice versa permits parties extend certain terms contract cover entire period goods carrier responsibility including period inland transport norfolk southern james kirby pty carmack amendment respondents rely requires domestic rail carrier receives property transportation part issue bill lading part refers surface transportation board stb jurisdiction domestic rail transportation see carmack assigns liability damage rail route receiving rail carrier delivering rail carrier regardless carrier caused damage purpose relieve cargo owners burden searching particular negligent carrier among often numerous carriers handling interstate shipment goods reider thompson thus constrains carriers ability limit liability contract limits parties choice venue federal state courts pp kirby cases ocean shipping company issued bill lading extended cogsa terms inland segment property damaged inland rail portion held bill terms governed federal maritime law notwithstanding contrary state laws explaining long bill lading requires substantial carriage goods sea purpose effectuate maritime commerce adding pplying state law undermine uniformity general maritime law defeat cogsa apparent purpose facilitate efficient contracting contracts carriage sea ibid kirby line issued bills cogsa maritime commerce extended terms journey inland domestic segment pp carmack amendment text history purposes make clear require different result pp carmack divides realm rail carriers receiving delivering connecting rail carriers first sentence requires compliant bill lading rail carrier provid es transportation service subject stb jurisdiction carrier receives property transportation thus requires receiving rail carrier delivering connecting rail carrier issue bill lading conclusion consistent statute text precedent see louis starbird receiving rail carrier initial carrier receives property domestic rail transportation journey point origin carmack bill lading requirement referred initial carrier carrier receiving property another carrier every carrier shipment issue separate bill contrary carmack purpose making receiving delivering carriers liable single initial bill damage caused carrier within single course shipment conclusion consistent mexican light power texas mexican held bill lading issued subsequent rail carrier initial carrier issued bill void unless represents initiation new shipment reider supra contrary absent bill lading original journey argentina terminated port new orleans first rail carrier receiving rail carrier carmack purposes carmack second sentence establishes applies transport property receiving carrier required issue bill lading regardless whether carrier actually issues bill see thus carmack applies journey begins receiving rail carrier issue compliant bill lading property received overseas location bill covers transport inland location country initial carrier instance receives property shipment point origin overseas multimodal import transport domestic rail transport carmack require line issue bills lading line receiving rail carrier chose use rail transport complete one segment journey essentially maritime contracts kirby supra put within carmack reach union pacific cargo owners concede mere delivering carrier issue carmack bill lading also receiving rail carrier carmack ninth circuit ignored carmack receive transportation limitation reached wrong conclusion conclusion also awkward fit carmack venue provisions presume receiving carrier obtains property judicial district within line receiving carrier case point origin china place carmack sue line since china within judicial district state pp carmack statutory history supports conclusion none legislative versions original statute amended ones applied inland domestic rail segment import shipment overseas bill pp interpretation also attains consistency carmack cogsa applying carmack inland segment international carriage originating overseas bill undermine carmack purposes premised view shipment single bill lading damage responsibility receiving delivering carriers ninth circuit interpretation might venue sue receiving carrier interpretation also undermine cogsa international multimodal transport cogsa liability venue rules apply cargo damaged sea carmack rules almost always apply damage occurs land moreover applying carmack international import shipping transport undermine cogsa purpose facilitate efficient contracting contracts carriage sea kirby supra cargo owners contrary policy arguments unavailing pp reversed remanded kennedy delivered opinion roberts scalia thomas breyer alito joined sotomayor filed dissenting opinion stevens ginsburg joined kawasaki kisen kaisha et petitioners corporation et al union pacific railroad company petitioner corporation et al writs certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice kennedy delivered opinion cases concern bills lading covering cargo entire course shipment beginning foreign overseas country continuing final inland destination voyage included ocean transit followed transfer rail carrier country addressed similar factual circumstances norfolk southern james kirby pty case terms bill controlled federal maritime law federal statute known carriage goods sea act cogsa note following kirby held bill lading provisions permissible cogsa invoked domestic rail carrier despite contrary state law instant cases present question neither raised addressed kirby whether terms bill lading issued abroad ocean carrier apply domestic part import journey rail carrier despite prohibitions limitations another federal statute statute known carmack amendment governs terms bills lading issued domestic rail carriers respondents corporation victory fireworks picc property casualty company royal sun alliance insurance company cargo owners insurance firms paid losses cargo owners succeeded rights referred cargo owners ship goods china inland destinations midwestern cargo owners delivered goods china petitioners kawasaki kisen kaisha agent line america referred line agree relevant contract terms governing shipment contained four bills lading line issued cargo owners bills lading covered entire course shipment bills required line arrange delivery goods china final destinations mode transportation line choosing bill lading records carrier received goods party wishes ship terms carriage serves evidence contract carriage kirby bill lading covers ocean inland portions transport single document line bills contain five relevant provisions first include himalaya clause extends bills defenses limitations liability parties sign subcontracts perform services contemplated bills see second bills permit line terms whatsoever completion journey app third bills provide cogsa terms govern entire journey fourth bills require dispute governed japanese law fifth bills state action relating carriage must brought tokyo district japan provision last clause gives rise dispute line pursuant bills lading arranged entire journey subcontracted petitioner union pacific railroad company rail shipment goods shipped line vessel port long beach california transferred union pacific rail carriage final destinations march april cargo owners brought four different container shipments line vessels chinese ports parties seem assume line safely transported cargo across pacific ocean california containers loaded onto union pacific train train train operated union pacific derailed tyrone oklahoma allegedly destroying cargo cargo owners filed four separate lawsuits superior california county los angeles suit named line union pacific defendants union pacific removed suits district central district california union pacific line moved dismiss based parties tokyo clause district granted motion dismiss decided clause reasonable applied union pacific pursuant himalaya clause line bills lading supp appeals ninth circuit reversed remanded concluded carmack amendment applied inland portion international shipment bill lading thus trumped parties clause noted view consistent position taken appeals second circuit see citing sompo japan ins union pacific inconsistent views courts appeals fourth sixth seventh eleventh circuits see citing shao link cargo taiwan american road serv consolidated rail capitol converting lep altadis usa ex rel fireman fund ins sea star line llc granted certiorari address whether carmack applies inland segment overseas import shipment bill lading ii turning carmack brief description cogsa order line union pacific primary contention cogsa carmack controls cogsa governs terms bills lading issued ocean carriers engaged foreign trade stat amended note following requires carrier issue cargo owner bill contains certain terms although cogsa imposes limitations parties authority adjust liability limit parties ability adopt clauses see vimar seguros reaseguros sky reefer terms cogsa applies shipments ports ports foreign countries vice versa statute however allows parties option extending certain cogsa terms contract cover entire period goods carrier responsibility including period inland transport kirby citing cogsa ocean carriers often must issue cogsa bills lading regulated federal maritime commission maritime commission responsible oversight common carriage goods water foreign commerce next statute consider carmack amendment stat governs terms bills lading issued domestic rail carriers carmack first enacted amendment interstate commerce act stat carmack amendment altered recodified last century provides relevant part follows rail carrier providing transportation service subject jurisdiction surface transportation board stb part shall issue receipt bill lading property receives transportation part rail carrier carrier delivers property providing transportation service subject jurisdiction stb part liable person entitled recover receipt bill lading liability imposed subsection actual loss injury property caused receiving rail carrier delivering rail carrier another rail carrier whose line route property transported place place adjacent foreign country transported bill lading failure issue receipt bill lading affect liability rail carrier see also motor carriers carmack amendment thus requires rail carrier receives property transportation part issue bill lading provision part refers stb jurisdiction rail transportation within see ed supp ii stb successor interstate commerce commission icc stb exclusive jurisdiction regulate transportation rail carriers places well place place foreign country regulated rail carriers must provide transportation subject stb rail carrier jurisdiction reasonable request reasonable rates cases applies carmack imposes upon receiving rail carrier delivering rail carrier liability damage caused rail route bill lading regardless carrier caused damage carmack purpose relieve cargo owners burden searching particular negligent carrier among often numerous carriers handling interstate shipment goods reider thompson help achieve goal carmack constrains carriers ability limit liability contract carmack also limits parties ability choose venue suit civil action section may brought district state civil action section may brought originating rail carrier judicial district point origin located ii delivering rail carrier judicial district principal place business person bringing action located delivering carrier operates railroad route judicial district judicial district point destination located iii carrier alleged caused loss damage judicial district loss damage alleged occurred purposes cases assumed carmack terms apply bills lading cargo owners substantial argument tokyo clause bills carmack venue provisions parties argue whether may contract carmack venue provisions requirements see light disposition ruling follow matters need discussed explored iii kirby ocean shipping company issued bill lading agreeing deliver cargo australia alabama like bills present cases kirby bill extended cogsa terms inland segment himalaya clause property damaged domestic rail carrier inland rail portion kirby held bill terms governed federal maritime law notwithstanding contrary state laws kirby explained long bill lading requires substantial carriage goods sea purpose effectuate maritime commerce added pplying state law cases like one undermine uniformity general maritime law confusion inefficiency inevitably result one body law governs given contract meaning noted conclusion reinforce liability regime congress established cogsa explained cogsa allows parties extend terms inland portion journey bill lading ibid finally concluded contrary holding defeat apparent purpose cogsa facilitate efficient contracting contracts carriage sea ibid much said kirby applies present cases line issued bills cogsa maritime commerce congress considered international bills decided permit parties extend cogsa terms inland domestic segment journey cargo owners line exactly cases agreeing bills require suit brought tokyo iv cargo owners argue carmack amendment venue provisions discussed kirby requires different result particular argue carmack applies domestic inland segment carriage tokyo clause inapplicable reasons set forth contention must rejected instructed text history purposes carmack holds amendment apply shipment originating overseas single bill lading kirby terms bill govern parties rights text statute charts analytic course carmack divides realm rail carriers three parts receiving rail carriers delivering rail carriers connecting rail carriers receiving rail carrier one provid es transportation service property receives transportation part see provision part refers stb jurisdiction rail transportation within see delivering rail carrier delivers property providing transportation service subject jurisdiction stb part see connecting rail carrier another rail carrier whose line route property transported place place adjacent foreign country transported bill lading rail carrier obligation issue bill lading determined carmack first sentence rail carrier providing transportation service subject jurisdiction stb part shall issue receipt bill lading property receives transportation part critical first sentence requires bill lading two conditions satisfied first rail carrier must provid transportation service subject jurisdiction stb second carrier must receiv property transportation part part stb jurisdiction domestic rail transport carmack thus requires receiving rail carrier delivering connecting rail carrier issue bill lading explained ascertaining shipment point origin critical deciding whether shipment includes receiving rail carrier conclusion carmack bill lading requirement applies receiving rail carrier dictated text consistent precedent see louis starbird explaining carmack requires receiving carrier issue bill lading receiving rail carrier initial carrier receives property domestic rail transportation journey point origin carmack bill lading requirement refer initial carrier rather rail carrier colloquial sense received property another carrier every carrier shipment issue separate bill altogether contrary carmack purpose making receiving delivering carriers liable single initial bill lading damage caused carrier within single course shipment decision mexican light power texas mexican supports conclusion receiving rail carrier must issue carmack bill lading subsequent rail carrier export shipment mexico issued separate bill lading border second bill differed bill issued initial carrier receiving carrier inland point origin held carmack far requiring nonreceiving carriers issue separate bills lading makes subsequent bill void unless second bill lading represents initiation new shipment decision reider thompson contrary case involved goods originating argentina bound inland location reider determined bill lading original journey argentina terminated port new orleans thus first rail carrier receiving rail carrier issue carmack bill lading carrier issue separate bill lading liable damage done portion shipment notably neither mexican light reider addressed situation present cases shipment originates overseas bill lading reason neither case discussed cogsa carmack amendment second sentence establishes carmack liability applies receiving rail carrier referred first sentence carrier delivers property providing transportation service subject jurisdiction stb part liable person entitled recover receipt bill lading thus receiving delivering rail carriers subject liability damage done property say property carmack first sentence requires receiving rail carrier issue bill lading ibid put another way carmack applies transport property carmack requires receiving carrier issue bill lading regardless whether carrier erroneously fails issue bill see ibid failure issue receipt bill lading affect liability rail carrier language courts appeals decisions rejected appeals opinion review read imply carmack applies rail carrier actually issued separate domestic bill lading see atladis american road shao capitol converting may led confusion decisive question whether rail carrier fact issued carmack bill rather whether carrier required issue bill carmack first sentence principles establish carmack provisions apply journey must begin receiving rail carrier issue bill lading follows carmack apply property received overseas location bill covers transport inland location case receiving rail carrier receives property domestic rail transportation thus carrier must issue bill lading initial carrier instance receives property shipment point origin overseas multimodal import transport domestic rail transport today decision need address instance goods received point export necessary decide carmack applies goods initially received canada mexico import see infra present cases illustrate operation principles carmack require line issue bills lading line receiving rail carrier line obtained cargo china overseas transport across ocean inland destinations line shipped property bills lading see supra line chose use rail transport complete one segment journey essentially maritime contracts kirby put line within carmack reach thus require issue carmack bills lading union pacific also receiving rail carrier carmack cargo owners conceded oral argument even theory union pacific mere delivering carrier issue carmack bill lading see tr oral arg necessary concession carrier become receiving carrier simply accepting goods transport another carrier middle international shipment bill union pacific initial carrier carriage mexican light carrier like union pacific acts connecting delivering carrier international shipment counterintuitively receiving carrier carmack effect outlaw shipments single bill lading carriage like one present case require two bills lading one overseas carrier line issues cargo owners cogsa second one first domestic rail carrier union pacific issues overseas carrier carmack kirby noted popularity bills lading cargo owners contract transportation across oceans inland destinations single transaction sees reason read cogsa carmack outlaw efficient mode international shipping requiring journeys multiple bills lading addition union pacific issue carmack bill lading line unclear whether cargo owners parties carmack designed protect able sue terms governing bill especially light different bill line difficulties reason enough reject novel interpretation carmack neither urged party adopted authority called attention quite different case reider bills lading overseas transport ended country ports cargo owners contracted union pacific complete new journey inland destination circumstances union pacific receiving rail carrier required issue separate bill lading cargo owners see reider various parties dealing shipment separated carriage distinct portions contracts courts judicially meld portions something appeals interpreted carmack applying domestic rail segment overseas shipment regardless whether carmack required bill lading rested assumption stb jurisdiction coextensive carmack coverage yet explained carmack applies shipments carmack requires bill lading say shipments start carrier subject stb jurisdiction receives property domestic rail transportation appeals ignored receive transportation limitation reached wrong conclusion see reiter sonotone courts obliged give effect possible every word congress used appeals conclusion also awkward fit carmack venue provisions carmack suit originating receiving rail carrier actually caused damage goods may brought judicial district point origin located suit either delivering carrier carrier caused damage contrast may brought various districts see udicial district refers district state carmack venue provisions presume receiving carrier obtains property judicial district within journey point origin china carmack venue provisions reinforce interpretation carmack apply carriage indeed line receiving carrier case journey point origin china place carmack sue line since china within judicial district state ibid carmack original premise receiving carrier liable damage caused carriers delivery chain premise defeated venue sue receiving rail carrier opposed suing different carrier one carmack venue provisions naming receiving carrier codefendant far likely conclusion line receiving rail carrier carmack thus carmack including venue provisions apply property shipped line bills true sole question one venue suit still brought carrier caused damage delivering carrier issue need explored holds carmack inapplicable cases carmack statutory history supports conclusion apply shipment originating overseas bill none carmack legislative versions applied inland domestic rail segment import shipment overseas bill congress enacted carmack amendment interstate commerce act time amendment provisions applied property transportation point one state point another state stat congress amended carmack stat relevant language remained unchanged carmack recodified language carmack bill lading provisions applied wholly domestic rail transport also cargo receive transportation point point adjacent foreign country even argument carmack amendment applied imports canada mexico phrase also mean cf reider supra explicitly deciding issue unaware authority holding carmack amendment applied cargo originating nonadjacent overseas countries bill see cummins amendment brief respondents effectively conceding point congress adopted carmack amendment largely current form stat congress statute stated recodifying carmack instructed recodification may construed making substantive change la see burlington northern oklahoma tax interpreting current version carmack amendment cover cargo originating overseas appeals disregarded direction dramatically expanded carmack scope beyond historical coverage finally congress reenacted carmack reenactment evidenced intent affect substantive change appeals decision entail see stat claim statute altered carmack text manner relevant reenactment merely indented subsections carmack readability cf slip urrent legislative drafting guidelines advise drafters break lengthy statutory provisions separate subsections read easily text permits congressional enactments construed consistent one another interpretation carmack adopts attains consistency carmack cogsa first applying carmack inland segment international carriage originating overseas bill undermine carmack purposes carmack premised view shipment single bill lading damage journey responsibility receiving delivering carrier see supra yet appeals interpretation carmack often venue sue receiving carrier see supra applying two different bill lading regimes shipment undermine cogsa international multimodal transport kirby explained international transportation industry moved new era age multimodalism transport based efficient use available modes transportation air water land quoting schoenbaum admiralty maritime law ed carmack applied inland segment shipment overseas bill one set liability venue rules apply cargo damaged sea cogsa another almost always apply damage occurs land carmack rather making claims cargo owners easier resolve decide damage occurred determine law applied practical matter requirement often met damage content containers occur contents damaged rough handling seepage theft unknown point see kindred brooks multimodal transport rules indeed adopting appeals approach seem require rail carriers open containers port check damage done sea voyage disruption undermine international transport read congress nonsubstantive recodification carmack create drastic sea change practice area applying carmack provisions international import shipping transport also undermine purpose cogsa facilitate efficient contracting contracts carriage sea kirby supra cases provide apt illustration sophisticated cargo owners agreed maritime bills lading applied inland segment himalaya clause authorized line subcontract inland segment terms whatsoever cargo owners thus made decision select line single company transportation needs rather contracting rail services bills provided liability venue rules foreseeable event cargo damaged carriage indeed cargo owners obtained separate insurance protect excess loss clause parties agreed upon indispensable element international trade commerce contracting allows parties agre advance forum acceptable bremen zapata clause kind enforced unless imposes venue gravely difficult inconvenient plaintiff practical purposes deprived day parties sensibly agreed bills governed japanese law tokyo best venue suit relating cargo cargo owners contrary policy arguments unavailing assert carmack apply inland segment international shipments unregulated brief respondents first speculation applying carmack inland segments overseas shipments cause severe problems refuted fact carmack even arguably govern inland portion shipments enactment nonsubstantive recodification see supra true cargo owners position prevail terms bills lading made maritime commerce restricted circumstances mean holding leaves field unregulated bills governed cogsa ocean vessels like operated line overseen federal maritime commission supra rail carriers like union pacific furthermore remain subject stb regulation extent operate within see supra notable although stb jurisdiction regulate rates carriers even carriage governed carmack amendment stb exercised authority exempt certain regulations service provided rail carrier part continuous intermodal freight movement cfr like journey issue cases see ibid exercising stb deregulation authority finally cargo owners miss mark relying recent nations convention contracts international carriage goods wholly partly sea yet ratified president advice consent senate brief amicus curiae rotterdam rules explicitly allow inland leg international shipment governed different legal regime ocean leg circumstances see res art doc nothing rotterdam rules however requires every country mandate different regime govern inland rail leg international shipment explained congress enacting cogsa opted allowing shipments governed single bill objection today decision undermine results international negotiations way concern met fact government urged result adopts today see brief amicus curiae congress decided allow parties engaged international maritime commerce structure contracts large extent see fit imposed carmack regime textually historically limited carriage goods received domestic rail transport onto essentially maritime contracts kirby line received goods china bills shipment line thus receiving rail carrier carmack required issue bills lading amendment union pacific also receiving carrier carriage thus required issue bills journey included receiving rail carrier issue bills lading carmack carmack apply parties agreement litigate cases tokyo binding cargo owners must abide contracts made judgment appeals ninth circuit reversed cases remanded proceedings consistent opinion ordered kawasaki kisen kaisha et petitioners corporation et al union pacific railroad company petitioner corporation et al writs certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice sotomayor justice stevens justice ginsburg join dissenting view carmack amendment interstate commerce act ica stat plainly applies inland leg multimodal shipment traveling international bill lading unless permissibly contracted around carmack requirements rail carriers petitioner union pacific subject requirements even though ocean carriers petitioner line avoid simple conclusion contorts statute cases misreads statutory history ascribes congress series policy choices congress manifestly make believe carmack provides default legal regime rail transportation cargo within regardless whether shipment originated abroad reach second question presented whether union pacific free opt carmack whether union pacific first offer line contractual counterparty terms question hold available remand district consider first instance whether union pacific satisfied obligations reasons respectfully dissent interpretation carmack scope wrong matter text history policy begin statute text two provisions guide conclusion carmack provides default legal regime inland leg multimodal shipment traveling international bill lading outlines basic requirements liability carmack defines jurisdiction surface transportation board stb board successor interstate commerce commission icc see ante section follows rail carrier providing transportation service subject jurisdiction board part shall issue receipt bill lading property receives transportation part rail carrier carrier delivers property providing transportation service subject jurisdiction board part liable person entitled recover receipt bill lading liability imposed subsection actual loss injury property caused receiving rail carrier delivering rail carrier another rail carrier whose line route property transported place place adjacent foreign country transported bill lading failure issue receipt bill lading affect liability rail carrier delivering rail carrier deemed rail carrier performing transportation nearest destination include rail carrier providing switching service destination respect board jurisdiction provides follows subject chapter board jurisdiction transportation rail carrier railroad railroad water transportation common control management arrangement continuous carriage shipment jurisdiction paragraph applies transportation place state place another state part interstate rail network another place foreign country place foreign country simple reading provisions practically compels conclusion carmack amendment applies typical multimodal carriage case inland damage sturley maritime cases train wrecks applying maritime law inland damage ocean cargo mar com hereinafter train wrecks first sentence sets forth circumstances receiving rail carrier must issue bill lading property first receive domestic transportation sentence define full scope carmack liability however penultimate sentence makes absence bill lading ultimately immaterial question carmack liability instead second sentence establishes carmack expansive scope explaining carriers subject carmack liability rail carrier receives property also carrier delivers property providing transportation service subject jurisdiction board part critically rail carrier provision transportation service subject jurisdiction board criterion establishes liability carmack demonstrates carmack scope must considered tandem provision describing board jurisdiction rail carriage provision board authority transportation rail carrier either transportation railroad railroad water transportation common control management arrangement continuous carriage shipment board jurisdiction transportation rail carrier applies transportation transportation abroad within however board jurisdiction exists broadly whenever transportation inter alia place state place another state part interstate rail network place another place foreign country place place foreign country jurisdictional framework mind return final sentences carmack third sentence clarifies liability carmack imposed upon receiving rail carrier first sentence definition board jurisdiction domestic rail carriage rail carrier first receives property transportation delivering rail carrier last sentence board jurisdiction domestic rail carriage final rail carrier providing transportation nearest destination another rail carrier whose line route property transported place place adjacent foreign country transported bill lading last phrase serves two functions ensures entire rail transportation connecting rail carrier point goods received point goods delivered liable carmack also ensures final destination goods canada mexico domestic delivering carrier connecting carrier taking goods remain subject carmack travels toward foreign destination still noted jurisdictional provision incorporated reference limited transportation language carmack thus announces expansive intent provide liability regime rail carriage property within first domestic rail carrier subject board jurisdiction receives property carmack attaches regardless property originated carmack applies rail carrier subject board jurisdiction chain transportation matter whether ultimate destination property elsewhere period carrier traveling within seems plain broadly inclusive provisions carmack governs rail carriers union pacific transportation cargo within whether domestic transportation part multimodal international shipment whether actually issued domestic bill lading question union pacific rail carrier subject jurisdiction board receive cargo california domestic transportation four different domestic inland locations place state place another state shipment transported place place foreign country union pacific issued bill lading cargo received failure shield liability makes clear carmack therefore provides legal regime governing union pacific rail transportation cases carmack however govern ocean carriers line carriers rail carrier providing transportation service subject jurisdiction board ica defines rail carrier person providing common carrier railroad transportation compensation resolve whether line meets definition apply stb well established test ask whether conduct rail operations service public assoc dock longshoremen pittsburgh conneaut dock respondents owners cargo allegedly damaged union pacific train derailment oklahoma ante primarily contend line conducted rail operations using containers transport cargo china conjunction union pacific subsequent carriage containers brief respondents noting statutory definition railroad includes equipment used connection railroad interpretation goes far read literally statute render truck railroad simply truck transported containers journey containers also traveled rail reading gut separate provisions ica governing motor carriage subtitle iv part title ica broad description term railroad includes better read ensuring services rail carrier conducts regulated act prevent overcharges discriminations made pretext performing additional services cleveland dettlebach oral argument respondents focused separate argument contending line considered rail carrier conducts substantial rail operations depot facility long beach california tr oral arg describing transportation port los angeles line private chassis transport containers port train tracks los angeles train depot containers loaded onto union pacific trains inland transportation agree board however operation private terminal facilities including rail yards sufficient bring shipper within definition rail carrier subject board maintained ocean common carrier exclusive use interchanging cargo rail motor carriers providing inland transportation joint application csx corp jurisdictional provisions ica shipping act et confirm view line rail carrier subject jurisdiction board carmack stb jurisdiction transportation rail carriers exclusive ocean carriers subject jurisdiction federal maritime commission fmc see also cfr addition board jurisdiction water carriage limited domestic water carriage board concluded ocean carriers providing intermodal transportation jointly inland rail motor carriers subject fmc jurisdiction rather see improvement regulations reasons carmack governs union pacific line inland transportation issue cases finding carmack inapplicable inland transportation cases majority relies fact carmack govern ocean carriers line agree line rail carrier majority places much weight determination ocean carrier line subject carmack affect determination rail carrier union pacific textual reasons explained majority contrary reading statute reflects four fundamental errors first majority reads term receiving rail carrier narrowly simply basis text statute support majority conclusion carmack applies first rail carrier chain transportation accepted cargo shipment point origin cf ante two cases majority cites proposition inapposite neither addresses international multimodal shipment first leg trip louis starbird entire shipment rail arkansas new york city mexican light power texas mexican entire shipment rail pennsylvania mexico given first rail carrier case carrier received goods shipper issued bill lading unsurprising applying carmack described carrier initial carrier nothing cases nothing carmack requires receiving carrier take goods shipper shipment point instead cases compatible view receiving carrier rail carrier first receives cargo transportation union pacific unquestionably rail carrier normal sense words also receiving carrier subject liability opinion reider thompson supports reading explained test carmack applicability shipment originated obligation carrier receiving carrier originated carmack applies domestic rail transport domestic rail carrier obligation case arose new orleans rail carrier received goods matter shipment began overseas buenos aires similarly instant cases union pacific obligations transport rail originated california matter shipment began overseas second majority errs suggesting issuance international bill lading precludes applicability carmack cf ante cases majority relies stand proposition reider found carmack applicable first domestic rail carrier issued bill lading new orleans boston although observed opinion bill lading buenos aires boston say necessary corollary presence bill lading commanded different result observation better read indicating law carmack possibly applied case shipment moved inch beyond new orleans ocean bill new domestic bill lading domestic transportation required transportation held carmack unquestionably applied part mexican light held first rail carrier chain transportation issued bill lading subsequent bill lading issued later rail carrier void carmack contemplates one bill lading governing entire journey rail subsequent bill lading connecting rail carrier however void carmack without requiring conclusion international bill lading involving initial transportation ocean carrier void subsequent bill lading issued first rail carrier domestic chain transportation text carmack expressly requires bill lading issued property receive transportation part union pacific first received property rail transportation issued bill lading course failure affect liability carmack subsequent connecting delivering carrier explicitly third majority errs giving weight difference scope carmack liability jurisdiction board ante agree majority carmack reach narrower board jurisdiction board jurisdiction extends transportation rail carrier place place foreign country indicates matter whether movement transportation foreign country foreign country contrast carmack applies rail carrier first receives property therefore apply rail carrier originating canada delivering without transferring property domestic rail long receiving rail carrier however carmack attaches property issue cases received domestic transportation union pacific carmack governs rail carrier liability finally majority misunderstands role believe carmack liability plays international shipments reading statute outlaw shipments single bill lading ante contrary overseas ocean carrier like line still issue bill lading governing entire international trip american destination bill lading reflects ocean carrier agreement obligations original shipper cargo ocean carrier independent carmack obligations ocean carrier shipper free select whatever liability terms wish govern relationship entire shipment see infra carmack simply requires american receiving rail carrier like union pacific issue bill lading party received goods shipment line see norfolk southern james kirby pty intermediary contracts carrier transport goods cargo owner recovery carrier limited liability limitation intermediary carrier agreed great northern holding railroad company entitled treat intermediary forwarder shipper bill lading carmack provides legal regime defines relationship contracting parties unless agreed contract carmack see infra issuance second bill lading however way undermines efficiency bill lading ocean carrier original shipper require parties bind apply carmack inland addition misreading text opinion misapplies carmack statutory history version carmack ever applied imports originating overseas bill lading ante asserts congress stated recodification ica effected substantive change carmack read consistently historical practice ante three problems analysis first congress intended substantive change carmack recodification mean present text best evidence law always meant language prior version relied upon support different reading keene stevens dissenting present text carmack indicates applies domestic inland rail transportation multimodal international shipment reason rely congress statement recodification second necessary conflict version carmack reading current text text referred carrier receiving property transportation point one state territory district columbia point another state territory district columbia point point adjacent foreign country rail carrier like union pacific receives property california transportation locations american midwest receiv es property point one state point another state regardless whether property originated california china geographical restriction point point adjacent foreign country simply reflected agreements icc canadian counterpart respect regulation rail carriage originating country see brief amicus curiae hereinafter brief indicate rejection carmack applicability imports whole exports nonadjacent foreign instead adjacent foreign country provision expansive rather limiting ensuring carmack apply shipment traveled rail new york city montreal without stopping border canada third extent meaningful differences text carmack current text current text interpret regardless congress general hortatory statement public law applicable entire ica often observed specific provision controls one general application general statement congress intended change ica require us ignore current text specific carmack provision says union pacific line explicitly ask us see brief petitioner statutory language controls case brief petitioners arguing reliance text petitioners view statutory interpretation give rise unwieldy unjust system thought beyond cavil litigants entitled rely currently applicable version enacted statutes determine rights obligations final analysis meaning language murky congress instruction recodification effected substantive change provides meaningful guidance current text restrict carmack coverage trade adjacent foreign countries makes distinction imports exports carmack ambiguous history justify reading atextual limitations suggestion interpretation properly effectuates goals carmack attains consistency carmack carriage goods sea act cogsa ante reflects fundamental misunderstanding statutes broader legal context international shipping industry functions mandatory default regime governing relationship american receiving rail carrier direct contracting partner overseas ocean carrier carmack permits shippers contract bill lading ocean carrier receive benefit carmack relationship legal regime entirely consistent cogsa industry practice noted position carmack rests erroneous belief receiving carrier must receive goods point shipment origin ante carmack provides suit receiving rail carrier may brought judicial district point origin located defines judicial district federal state mistakenly concludes carmack apply inland transportation international shipments often venue sue receiving carrier carrier received goods foreign country federal state exists ante contrary suggestion however proper venue sue receiving carrier carmack location first domestic rail carrier received goods domestic transportation supra true carmack focus providing single bill lading entire shipment ante carmack purpose ensure single bill lading single protective liability regime governs entire shipment rail carrier within require rail carrier offer terms anyone party rail carrier contracts receives goods place obligations relationship overseas carrier overseas shipper operate bill lading congress expected different liability regimes govern ocean rail carriers inferred different regulatory oversight provided type carrier fmc former stb latter see supra moreover carmack provides certain greater protections cogsa demonstrates one carmack purposes beyond simply fact single bill lading governing rail transportation specify protective liability regime part shipment compared cogsa carmack provides heightened liability rules rail transportation compare cogsa stat note following stricter venue requirements compare vimar seguros reaseguros sky reefer generous time allowances filing suit compare cogsa congress evidently wary creating broad exemptions carmack regime congress given expansive authority stb deregulate carriers requirements ica precluded stb excusing carriers complying carmack see infra discussing taking carmack protections picture goods travel rail whenever goods first traveled ocean liner undermine carmack purposes ante cf reider applying carmack domestic rail transportation goods even goods originated overseas order avoid immuniz ing beneficial provisions carmack amendment shipments originating foreign country reshipped via transportation chain amendment concerned suggestion interpretation best comports goals cogsa fares better correct ante congress permitted parties contractually extend cogsa terms applies period time goods loaded time discharged ship ignores cogsa specifically contemplates may law mandatorily governs inland leg makes clear contractual extension cogsa trump law nothing cogsa shall construed superseding law applicable absence cogsa insofar relate duties responsibilities liabilities ship carrier prior time goods loaded time discharged ship see also sturley freedom contract ironic story section carriage goods sea act benedict mar bull highly ironic suggest section intended facilitate extension cogsa inland unambiguous history demonstrates section specifically designed accomplish exactly opposite result notably wants congress knows specify contractual extension cogsa supersedes law cogsa elsewhere defines limited circumstance carriage goods sea ports contractual extension cogsa force law providing bills lading shall subjected hereto fully subject hereto express provisions cogsa congress make provision inland travel powerful evidence meant carmack remain default regime land governing relationship inland rail carrier overseas carrier directly contracted also wrong interpretation avoids risk two sets rules apply shipment different ante even interpretation two sets rules may govern parties need extend cogsa inland leg may agree terms choose cover transportation permitting parties ente agreement responsibility liability carrier ship period goods loaded discharged ship emphasis added see also train wrecks arriers regularly include clauses bills lading limit liability inland travel ways cogsa prohibits schoenbaum admiralty maritime law ed describing typical liability rules parties select inland leg cases example line bills lading include certain terms governing inland leg differ terms governing ocean carriage see app providing different time frames within suit must brought depending whether actionable conduct occurred water carriage relies heavily kirby identifying relevant policy consideration cases takes wrong lesson kirby case concerned displacing single federal law cogsa varying state liability rule establishes today creates even greater practical difficulties regime criticized kirby displacing carmack many liability rules bills lading even permit different liability rules apply different lawsuits arising inland accident depending piece cargo originated contrary view value uniformity articulated kirby best promoted application carmack obligations rail carrier inland leg cases cf ante finally purporting effectuate contractual choices parties international multimodal shipping industry ante ignores realities industry operation industry long accustomed drafting bills lading encompass two legal regimes one governing ocean transportation another governing inland transportation given mandatory law governing road rail carriage europe certain countries asia north africa see generally convention contract international carriage goods road may uniform rules concerning contract international carriage goods rail app convention concerning international carriage rail may amended protocol modification convention concerning international carriage rail may june indeed line bills lading evidence practice providing applicable international convention national law exists departed applied separate contract inland carriage made merchant inland carrier laws govern line liability brief respondents recently signed nations convention contracts international carriage goods wholly partly sea also known rotterdam rules provided opportunity international community adopt rules multimodal shipments uniform ocean inland legs see generally train wrecks instead final version rotterdam rules retained current system inland leg may governed different legal regime ocean leg see nations convention contracts international carriage goods wholly partly sea res art association american railroads among others advocated see proposal america definition maritime performing party doc proposal america doc proposals international road transport union iru doc mar preparation draft instrument carriage goods sea compilation replies questionnaire transport doc comments behalf association american railroads international road transport union thus mistaken interpretation upsets domestic law also disregards industry practice evidenced carefully calibrated international ii view carmack provides default legal regime governing relationship rail carrier ocean carrier inland leg multimodal shipment traveling bill lading reach second question presented cases whether parties validly contracted carmack hold stb exempted rail carriers part ica pursuant authority set forth rail carriers may use opt carmack entirely instead rail carriers must first offer contractual counterparties terms liability claims requires reached conclusion remand consideration whether requirements met cases set forth views briefly determination carmack apply makes resolution questions moot staggers rail act pub stat congress set forth national policy allow ing maximum extent possible competition demand services establish reasonable rates transportation rail minimiz ing need federal regulatory control railroad industry consistent goals provide two options contracting around requirements ica section provides certain conditions met board shall exempt maximum extent consistent part person class persons transaction service either particular provision part ica entirety part section specifies board may exercise authority section exempt transportation provided rail carrier part continuous intermodal movement acting pursuant authority board broadly exempted transportation requirements ica cfr authority issue broad exemptions however unlimited exemption order issued pursuant section shall operate relieve rail carrier obligation provide contractual terms liability claims consistent provisions carmack although time othing shall prevent rail carriers offering alternative terms section limits board exempting rail carriers obligations comply certain employee protections part ica turn ne rail carriers providing transportation subject jurisdiction board may enter contract one purchasers rail services provide specified services specified rates conditions signed contract rail carrier shall duty connection services provided contract duties specified terms contract contract made contract transportation contract shall subject part may subsequently challenged board grounds contract violates provision part ica according union pacific limits board exemption ability place affirmative obligation rail carriers offer terms rail carriers union pacific contends may opt carmack entirely simply entering contract thus escaping duty imposed part ica disagree persuaded government view board order cfr exempted intermodal rail transportation part ica includes union pacific properly enter contract section relieve obligations section brief obligations require rail carrier providing exempt transportation offer shipper option contractual terms liability claims consistent carmack presumably higher rate permit rail carrier enter contract different terms shipper select option observing board exemption order relieves intermodal rail transportation requirements part union pacific contends requirement privilege therefore included within exemption clarifying order however board described exemption one regulation ica application act see improvement regulations especially light clarification seems little reason ascribe significance board use word requirements instead statutory term provision exemption order government aptly describes policy concerns justify reading interplay brief rail carrier counterparty contract ordinarily require rail carrier comply common carriage rates terms part including carmack counterparties possess considerable bargaining power rail carriers board exempted part lack obligation comply part exempt carriers escape carmack obligations counterparties significant disadvantage compared counterparties contracts nonexempt carriers disadvantage squared congress evident intent expressed ensure carrier may automatically exempted carmack interpretation imposes unfairness exempt rail carriers appeals explained carriers providing exempt transportation gain benefits deregulation lose opportunity contract preferable terms without first offering carmack terms given rail carriers ability charge higher rates full carmack coverage see new york nothnagle likelihood counterparties agree reject terms favor lower price makes eminent sense whether union pacific properly contracted carmack requires factual determination better suited resolution district first instance accordingly remand consideration issue cf union pacific also raises related legal argument decided courts forum selection clause issue cases valid venue encompassed within phrase contractual terms liability claims extent argument waived also properly considered remand endorsing strained reading text history purpose carmack evidently concerned perceived need enforce contracts sophisticated cargo owners made line ante cases require interpret examine contract cargo owners line need consider legal relationship union pacific line direct contracting party relationship bears emphasizing industry actors sides sophisticated easily adapt regime carmack provides default rule governing rail carrier liability inland leg multimodal shipment traveling international bill lading see train wrecks describing ocean rail carriers drafted contracts account permissibly escape carmack applicability cf kirby recognizing decision provide legal backdrop future bills lading negotiated disregarding congress commands carmack cogsa discounting practical realities reflected rotterdam rules international conventions governing carriage goods ignores acknowledged kirby task structure international shipping industry ibid respectfully dissent footnotes together union pacific railroad et also certiorari footnotes think line conducts rail operations reach question whether line holds offering rail common carriage compare brief respondents reply brief petitioners pp additional cases cites proposition suffer flaw see brief amicus curiae tr oral arg carmack venue provision refers receiving rail carrier originating rail carrier proper venue lawsuit carrier judicial district point origin located especially focus carmack transportation rail phrase point origin context best read referring point origin originating rail carrier transportation point origin shipment majority suggests respondents conceded oral argument union pacific receiving carrier delivering carrier ante course bound party concession interpretation statute see massachusetts contrary union pacific suggestion brief petitioner obligations originate china line bills lading issued china entitled line terms duties whatsoever undertaken app therefore create obligation part union pacific china turn agreement line union pacific line made duly authorized agent representative line america inc michigan corporation multiyear contract committing line tender union pacific less container traffic actually commit line deliver particular piece cargo union pacific line explains agreement union pacific contract become effective particular container line delivered union pacific california brief petitioners ica jurisdictional provision uses term foreign country describe board jurisdiction carmack uses term adjacent foreign country describe liability connecting carriers find difference terms moment section describes board jurisdiction rail carriers impossible connecting rail lines foreign country adjacent reading confirmed refers board jurisdiction transportation railroad place another place foreign country rail transportation two places interrupted rail transportation foreign country foreign country anything adjacent situation consistent historical agreements icc canadian counterpart see infra majority seems find troubling view require two bills lading ante international shipments frequently contain one bill lading see kirby interpreting parties obligations two bills lading one shipper freight forwarding company shipper originally delivered goods one freight forwarding company ocean carrier freight forwarder delivered shipper goods majority also suggests original shipper might able sue union pacific terms union pacific bill line ante kirby however took given shipper sue inland rail carrier even though shipper party rail carrier bill lading intermediary indeed held action rail carrier shipper bound terms bill lading governing rail carrier transportation even though terms less generous terms shipper bill lading freight forwarder originally contracted observed shipper sue freight forwarder recover difference light analysis see reason doubt shipper ability sue american rail carrier carmack even though bill lading overseas ocean carrier governed carmack version carmack referred generally carrier rather rail carrier congress distinguished carmack applicability rail carriers motor carriers freight forwarders domestic water carriers pub stat ignores reason believe prior carmack understood apply imports well exports even assuming contrary view relevant language carmack governing international commercial exchange phrase point point adjacent foreign country seemingly reasonably interpreted also encompassing light decision galveston woodbury case interpreted similar language jurisdictional section ica conferring jurisdiction icc transportation countries construing place adjacent foreign former include transportation country given presumption given term used mean thing throughout statute brown gardner citing atlantic cleaners dyers construction ica jurisdictional provision reasonably read sweep imports within scope carmack however read current version encompass congress specifically amended similar language jurisdictional provision leaving intact carmack background woodbury amicus support line union pacific makes effort find limitations current statutory text see brief see also reply brief petitioner agreeing interpretation argument unpersuasive observes describes liability another rail carrier whose line route property transported place place adjacent foreign country transported bill lading emphasis added according hat textual limitation read light carmack purpose reflects congress continued intent restrict carmack carriage goods places export adjacent foreign country brief already explained however domestic rail carrier first receives property transportation within regardless property originated carmack applies supra section simply ensures connecting carrier neither received property delivered transports property either canada mexico connecting carrier remains subject carmack liability part transportation explain see infra carmack purpose better effectuated applying provisions inland default rule event adjacent foreign country provision bearing rail transportation provided cases union pacific receiving rail carrier california four locations american midwest transportation carmack plainly applies separate version carmack applies motor nonrail carriers within see supra interpretation statute necessarily require two different regimes apply shipment given parties ability contract around carmack long follow appropriate procedures infra choose select cogsa terms kirby address question carmack applicability inland leg multimodal international shipment traveling bill lading question presented brief amicus curiae norfolk southern kirby pp ante petitioner union pacific leading member american association railroads train wrecks observation nothing rotterdam rules requires every country mandate different regime govern inland rail leg international shipment irrelevant ante rotterdam rules demonstrate simply common practice different regimes inland ocean transportation giving full effect carmack default law governing relationship line union pacific hardly said undermine cogsa international multimodal transport ante