843 F.3d 1167
8th Cir.2016Background
- The City of Ozark sued Union Pacific in state court seeking an order requiring Union Pacific to restore a public at‑grade rail crossing the railroad closed in 2001, or alternatively to allow condemnation of railroad land for the crossing.
- Union Pacific removed the action to federal court; both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court found the crossing was a public easement and that Union Pacific closed it unlawfully under Arkansas law, granted the City summary judgment, and ordered the railroad to restore the crossing.
- The district court rejected Union Pacific’s ICCTA preemption defense, reasoning preemption did not apply because the crossing had been closed unlawfully under state law.
- On appeal Union Pacific argued the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b), preempts the City’s state‑law remedy because restoring the crossing could interfere with rail operations and safety.
- The Eighth Circuit held § 10501(b)’s express preemption applies and remanded: the district court must determine, or defer pending an STB declaratory ruling, whether restoration would "impede rail operations or pose undue safety risks" such that the Surface Transportation Board has exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICCTA § 10501(b) preempt the City’s state‑law claim to restore a closed crossing? | The crossing was closed unlawfully under state law, so federal preemption is "not at issue." | ICCTA preempts state remedies that would affect transportation by rail; exclusive STB jurisdiction applies if restoration would interfere with operations or safety. | Reversed: § 10501(b) can preempt despite the crossing’s prior unlawful closure; preemption is a federal question focused on impact to rail transportation. |
| What test governs preemption for crossing disputes? | (City) State law should control where closure violated state procedures. | (Union Pacific) STB’s as‑applied test applies: preempt if reopening would "impede rail operations or pose undue safety risks." | Adopted STB approach: facial vs. as‑applied preemption; courts must assess whether proposed remedy unreasonably interferes with rail operations. |
| Should the district court’s order restoring the crossing be enforced now? | City sought immediate restoration to pre‑2001 condition. | Union Pacific showed evidence reopening would adversely affect operations and pose safety risks; case falls within STB’s exclusive jurisdiction. | District court injunction vacated; case remanded for jurisdictional ruling or for the City to seek an STB declaratory order. |
| Role of STB in resolving disputes over crossings | City favored immediate court resolution under state law. | Union Pacific urged deference to STB for exclusive jurisdiction determination and possible accommodations. | Court instructed that the district court may defer final ruling to allow petition to STB; STB could find preemption or permit a non‑interfering accommodation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks Inv. Co. LLC v. Union Pac. R.R., 593 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (as‑applied preemption analysis for crossing disputes)
- PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts may resolve crossing disputes under state law when no unreasonable interference shown)
- City of Lincoln v. Surface Transp. Bd., 414 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2005) (focus of ICCTA preemption is interstate rail transportation)
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Chicago Transit Auth., 647 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (if remedy would unreasonably interfere, STB has exclusive jurisdiction)
- Adrian & Blissfield R.R. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2008) (state law may govern non‑interfering obligations like sidewalks)