City of Cayce v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
706 S.E.2d 6
S.C.2011Background
- Norfolk operates rail transportation across 22 states and maintains bridges and related facilities in South Carolina, including a bridge over US 321 in Cayce.
- City requested Norfolk to paint the rusted and graffiti-covered Bridge, citing aesthetic concerns and negative impact on property values; Norfolk declined due to cost and safety priorities.
- In 2007, Cayce amended its nuisance ordinance § 28-251 to add a subsection covering rusted private structures over streets, including bridges and overpasses.
- City cited Norfolk for violating the amended ordinance based on the Bridge’s rust and graffiti; a municipal judge found Norfolk guilty and fined $500.
- Circuit Court reversed, holding the ordinance preempted by ICCTA and FRSA; City appealed the preemption ruling.
- Supreme Court affirmed, holding ICCTA preempts enforcement of the nuisance ordinance against Norfolk because bridges and related structures are within ICCTA’s scope and the ordinance interferes with rail operations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICCTA preempts enforcement of the nuisance ordinance. | Norfolk contends no preemption since the ordinance targets aesthetics, not rail operations. | City argues no direct conflict exists; preemption should be limited or not apply. | ICCTA preempts enforcement against Norfolk. |
| Whether the ordinance burdens interstate rail transportation in a way preempted by ICCTA even without a direct conflict. | Norfolk emphasizes need for uniform standards and potential safety costs; claims burden on operations is incidental. | City asserts no meaningful preemption because remedy concerns are local, not operational. | Enforcement would burden rail operations; preemption applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (establishes federal supremacy to the extent of conflict with state law)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (conflict preemption and implied preemption principles)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (purpose of Congress and field versus conflict preemption framework)
- Anderson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 291 S.W.3d 586 (2009) (broad preemption of rail regulation; field/conflict preemption analysis)
- Priester v. Cromer, 388 S.C. 425 (2010) (federal preemption can apply beyond express conflicts)
- CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (express preemption focus on congressional intent and statutory scope)