919 N.W.2d 609
Wis. Ct. App.2018Background
- Weyauwega municipal ordinance forbids any train from blocking a street or highway crossing for more than ten minutes unless the train is "continuously in motion."
- Wisconsin Central operates tracks through the City and periodically stops trains that block one or more crossings; one stop lasted 69 minutes and generated a citation.
- Parties stipulated that the municipal-court trial on that citation would resolve dozens of similar citations; municipal court ruled for the City; Wisconsin Central appealed to circuit court, which also ruled for the City.
- Wisconsin Central conceded the factual violation but argued the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and related federal regulations preempt the ordinance; circuit court rejected preemption.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether the FRSA preempts the ordinance, assumed (without deciding) the ordinance could be treated as a "State" enactment for FRSA savings-clause purposes, and focused on the two FRSA saving clauses.
- The court concluded federal regulations governing train speed, crossing-safety procedures, and air-brake testing "cover" the ordinance’s subject matter and that the ordinance did not qualify as addressing an "essentially local" safety hazard; it reversed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Wis. Cent.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FRSA preempts the municipal anti-blocking ordinance | Ordinance protects local public health/safety and falls within FRSA saving clauses (state/local exception and local-hazard exception) | FRSA and federal regs preempt: ordinance is "related to" and federal regs "cover" train movement/operations; savings clauses inapplicable | FRSA and federal regulations preempt the ordinance; reversed circuit court |
| Whether the ordinance is "related to" railroad safety | Ordinance addresses city safety not railroad operations | Ordinance directly regulates train stopping/movement and thus is related to railroad safety | Ordinance is "related to" railroad safety |
| Whether federal regulations "cover" the ordinance's subject matter | Ordinance targets local obstruction and is not subsumed by federal rules | Federal rules on train speeds, crossing procedures, and brake testing substantially subsume regulation of train movement at crossings | Federal regulations cover the subject matter; first savings clause inapplicable |
| Whether ordinance qualifies under the FRSA's "essentially local safety hazard" exception | City: geography and emergency-service layout make the hazard unique and local | Wisconsin Central: situation common to many municipalities and addressable by national standards | City failed to show an "essentially local" hazard; second savings clause not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court) (interpreting FRSA preemption and that federal speed/regulatory scheme can preclude additional state regulation)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court) (discussing FRSA national-uniformity purpose)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court) (treating references to "State" regulatory authority and municipal delegation in preemption contexts)
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court) (explaining diminished presumption against preemption where federal presence is pervasive)
- Village of Mundelein v. Wisconsin Cent. R.R., 227 Ill.2d 281 (Ill. 2008) (upholding view that anti-blocking ordinances regulate train movement and are preempted by federal law)