within that category, the Court will on that ground grant Defendants’ Motion with respect to that issue. Turning to the non-delegation claim, though, Amtrak’s status as a governmental or private entity is less clear. Fortunately, however, the Court need not resolve that question. Instead, it finds that, even if Amtrak is a private entity, § 207’s delegation survives AAR’s nondelegation challenge because the government retains control over the promulgation of the Metrics and Standards. The Court will thus grant Defendants’ Motion with respect to that claim as well. A. Due Process Claim The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits interested private parties from wielding regulatory authority. See Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 311, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160 (1936) (<HOLDING>); Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et
holding that the power to regulate the business of another and especially of a competitor is a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment