BNSF Railway v. City of Edmond, 22 F.4th 1190

Oklahoma law (Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 190(A)) forbids a railcar from blocking a public grade crossing for more than 10 minutes and authorizes municipal fines.
BNSF, an interstate rail carrier operating ~952 route miles in Oklahoma, was cited multiple times after trains occupied side tracks and blocked crossings while letting other trains pass (citations for 38, 80, and 37 minute stoppages).
Cities of Edmond and Davis filed enforcement complaints with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission; OCC issued citations and hearings were set.
BNSF sued in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction, arguing federal law (ICCTA and FRSA) preempts the Oklahoma statute; Oklahoma intervened.
The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF, holding the ICCTA preempted the Blocked Crossing Statute and enjoining enforcement; the State appealed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the statute regulates railroad operations (within STB/ICCTA jurisdiction) and is not a rail-safety measure governed by the FRSA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ICCTA preempts Oklahoma's Blocked Crossing Statute	ICCTA vests exclusive federal jurisdiction over rail operations/side tracks; state law regulating time trains occupy crossings is preempted	State/local police powers allow such public-safety ordinances; ICCTA shouldn't displace local measures	Held: ICCTA preempts — the statute effectively regulates railroad operations, which Congress assigned to the STB
Whether the FRSA (rail-safety regime) controls preemption analysis	BNSF: statute regulates operations, not rail safety, so ICCTA is the proper framework	Oklahoma: blocked crossings raise safety risks (delayed emergency response), so FRSA/ FRA preemption analysis applies instead of ICCTA	Held: FRSA does not apply — the statute addresses public/local safety consequences, not hazards to the railroad system or its participants
Whether blocked crossings are "rail safety" (triggering FRSA) or public safety (state)	BNSF: blocking-time limits are operational/economic decisions, not FRA-covered rail-safety rules	Oklahoma: blocked crossings create genuine safety risks to the public and first responders, so fall within rail-safety preemption analysis	Held: Court characterizes the statute as regulating railroad operations and local public safety (not rail-safety); thus ICCTA analysis governs and statute is preempted

Emerson v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 503 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2007) (discusses ICCTA exclusivity and STB deference)
Friberg v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (held ICCTA preempted a state anti‑blocking statute)
Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transp., 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (FRSA is the appropriate framework for rail‑safety preemption)
Iowa, Chicago & Eastern R.R. Corp. v. Wash. Cnty., 384 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2004) (analyzes highway vs. rail safety in FRSA context)
Bos. & Me. Corp. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 364 F.3d 318 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (distinguishes STB authority from FRA safety authority)
R.R. Ventures, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 299 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002) (gives deference to STB statutory interpretations)
Eng. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) (sets out categories of federal preemption under Supremacy Clause)