Tubbs v. Surface Transportation Board
812 F.3d 1141
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Tubbses own a 550-acre farm bisected by a BNSF railroad embankment that blocks drainage.
- BNSF maintains drainage conduits through the embankment but did not increase drainage capacity as embankment height rose.
- In 2011, anticipated flooding led BNSF to raise the embankment; record flood waters breached it later that year.
- Flooding washed away fertile soil on the Tubbses’ farm, allegedly due to BNSF’s maintenance of the embankment.
- Tubbses sued in state court for torts including trespass, nuisance, negligence, inverse condemnation, and statutory trespass; Board preliminarily reviewed preemption under ICCTA.
- Board concluded ICCTA preempts state-law claims but that a FRSA-based federal claim remained; Tubbses appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board’s test for as-applied preemption permissible under ICCTA? | Tubbses contend the test is improper and should not replace state-law with federal remedies. | Board adequately interprets ICCTA using an allowed 'unreasonable burden or interference' framework. | Permissible construction; Tubbses failed to show the test is impermissible. |
| Do Tubbses’ state-law claims unreasonably burden or interfere with rail transportation? | Claims seek remedies for harms from embankment maintenance, not regulation of rail transportation. | Claims would regulate an integral part of rail transportation and hinder uniform railroad design/maintenance. | Yes; the claims would unreasonably burden or interfere with rail transportation. |
| Are Tubbses’ remaining federal remedies sufficient to defeat preemption (FRSA claim)? | FRSA remedies do not provide a one-to-one replacement for state-law claims. | Surviving FRSA claims provide adequate federal remedies; ICCTA preemption still applies to state claims. | FRSA remedies suffice; state claims preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- MidAmerican Energy Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 169 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 1999) (limits deference in reviewing Board interpretations; permissible construction standard)
- Franks Investment Co. LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 593 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc; discusses as-applied preemption framework)
- Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transp., 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (as-applied preemption test applied to ICCTA preemption)
- PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2009) (as-applied preemption framework in ICCTA cases)
- Adrian & Blissfield R. Co. v. Vill. of Blissfield, 550 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2008) (factors for preemption impact on rail transportation)
- New York Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. Jackson, 500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (as-applied preemption and railroad-regulation balance)
- Emerson v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 503 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes drainage/maintenance from regulatory overreach)
- Guild v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 541 F. App'x 362 (5th Cir. 2013) (evidence sufficiency on claims affecting rail transportation)
- Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Whittier Wood Products Co. (In re Jones Truck Lines, Inc.), 57 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 1995) (takings-related considerations; non-final judgment injuries speculative)