Balagna v. United States, 14-21

The City of Canton and the Village of Norris (Illinois municipal corporations) own land abutting a railroad right-of-way held by BNSF. When BNSF sought abandonment, the Canton Parks District (CPD) filed a Request for Public Use Condition and Interim Trail Use with the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
STB issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU), triggering alleged rails-to-trails implications for the corridor.
Plaintiffs sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the NITU constituted a taking of their property interests.
The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that because CPD is an Illinois municipal corporation and Illinois controls disposition of municipal property, CPD’s Request amounted to state consent and therefore no compensable taking occurred.
The Court assumed, for purposes of decision, that CPD acted within its statutory authority to file the Request and concluded the State effectively consented to federal holding of the properties for trail use; it granted summary judgment to the government.
Plaintiffs moved under RCFC 59 for reconsideration, arguing the Court erred in presuming CPD had authority under Illinois law to file the Request; the Court denied reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPD had authority under Illinois law to file a Request with STB and thereby permit federal trail use affecting City/Village property	CPD lacked authorization to appropriate/dispose of City/Village property; the Court should not assume CPD acted within state authority	CPD, as a state municipal entity, acted within delegated state authority; the State’s consent via CPD precludes a compensable taking	Court assumed CPD acted within its statutory authority to file the Request and found the State effectively consented to federal holding; summary judgment for the government upheld
Whether the Court erred in presuming CPD’s authority and should adjudicate inter-municipal power disputes under state law	Court must not presume such authority; plaintiffs contested that assumption	Federal courts should defer to state courts on internal allocation of powers among state subdivisions; federal presumption of regularity applies to CPD’s actions	Court held plaintiffs failed to show manifest error; it declined to resolve state-law allocation disputes and applied presumption of regularity, denying reconsideration

Carmack v. United States, 329 U.S. 230 (1946) (federal action can be treated as taken with state consent when state-agent acts on state’s behalf)
Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (reconsideration is discretionary)
Wilmette Park Dist. v. Vill. of Wilmette, 490 N.E.2d 1282 (Ill. 1986) (disputes over powers of municipal subdivisions are matters of state law)
City of Des Plaines v. Metro. Sanitary Dist., 268 N.E.2d 428 (Ill. 1971) (same)
Vill. of Schiller Park v. City of Chicago, 186 N.E.2d 343 (Ill. 1962) (same)
Johnson v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 558 (2016) (standard for showing manifest error on reconsideration)