Sidley is a go-to firm for rail-industry clients on federal preemption and preclusion issues. We regularly litigate, advise on, and help engage with government officials on preemption questions under the whole range of laws covering the industry, including the:
- ICC Termination Act (ICCTA);
- Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA);
- Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (4R Act);
- Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA);
- Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA);
- Noise Control Act (NC);
- Signal Inspection Act (SIA); and
- U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause
We also regularly deal with cutting-edge preclusion questions about how these federal laws interact with each other. We have significant experience litigating FRSA preclusion under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and preemption when both the ICCTA and the FRSA could apply. And we know well the arguments that regulators and plaintiffs make on these topics.
Our experience in this area includes not just litigating preemption and preclusion questions on the merits, but also dealing with the vital threshold questions of when, where, and how to secure judicial resolution in the appropriate forum.
This breadth of experience reflects our decades-long track record handling some of the highest-profile rail preemption cases. We have litigated these issues in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before federal agencies like the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and in precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases. Our representative preemption cases include:
- Norfolk S. Ry. v. Dille Rd. Recycling, LLC, 94 F.4th 517 (6th Cir. 2024), successfully overturning an adverse district court decision granting a neighboring landowner a prescriptive easement over rail-corridor property;
- Skidmore v. Norfolk S. Ry., 1 F.4th 206 (4th Cir. 2021), securing a precedent-setting ruling that property-law claims aimed at railroad facilities can be removed to federal court under complete ICCTA preemption;
- Ass’n of Am. Railroads v. Hatfield, 435 F. Supp. 3d 769 (E.D. Ky. 2020), securing a ruling barring enforcement of state blocked-crossing laws against AAR’s members;
- Indiana v. Norfolk S. Ry., 107 N.E.3d 468 (Ind. 2018), securing a ruling barring enforcement of state blocked-crossing law;
- BNSF Ry. & Union Pac. R.R. v. Cal. Dep’t of Tax & Fee Admin., 904 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2018), securing a precedent-setting ruling that a per-rail-car fee on hazardous materials transportation was preempted by the ICCTA and not saved by the HMTA;
- CSX Transportation v. Alabama Dep’t of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2011), securing a ruling that railroads may invoke the 4R Act to challenge sales-and-use taxes that exempt their competitors in the transportation industry;
- Norfolk Southern Ry. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000), securing a ruling that the FRSA preempts state tort claims alleging inadequate warning devices at crossings where federal funds have participated in the devices’ installation; and
- CSX Transportation v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), a landmark decision setting the standard for all FRSA preemption claims.
We also regularly advise clients on preemption issues related to new facilities and rail operations, and we help clients navigate state legislative proposals and regulatory actions that would implicate federal preemption.
