• About F & S
  • Our Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
      • litigateLitigation Services
      • REGRegulatory Matters
      • Commercial Transactions
      • Labor & Employment
      • General Counsel Service
      • Government & Passenger Rail
    • Close
  • Our Clients
  • Alerts & Analysis
  • About F & S
  • Our Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
      • litigateLitigation Services
      • REGRegulatory Matters
      • Commercial Transactions
      • Labor & Employment
      • General Counsel Service
      • Government & Passenger Rail
    • Close
  • Our Clients
  • Alerts & Analysis
Illinois Two-Person Crew Law: Federal Court Declares the Law Preempted – But Throws a Lifeline to the State

Illinois Two-Person Crew Law: Federal Court Declares the Law Preempted – But Throws a Lifeline to the State

  • On October 2, 2020

By: Janet Gilbert

In August of 2019, Illinois enacted a two-person crew law.  On September 30, 2020, the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois declared the law preempted.

The lawsuit challenging the Illinois law was brought by The Indiana Rail Road Company along with the AAR and the ASLRRA.  The Illinois law is similar to a number of statutes passed by, or pending in, several states.

The FRA’s announced in May of 2019 — when it withdrew its two-person crew rulemaking – “that no regulation of train crew staffing is necessary…at this time” and the FRA intends “for the withdrawal to preempt all state laws attempting to regulate train crew staffing.”   The Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”) authorizes the FRA to regulate rail safety; however, the FRSA also permits a state to regulate rail safety so long as the FRA does not ”prescribe…a regulation or issue …an order covering the subject matter  of the State requirement.” A federal regulation or order covers the subject matter if “the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law.”  CSX Transp., Inc. v Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993).  In reaching its decision, the court answered a key question in the affirmative …but left the door open for a possible second bite at the apple for the State.

Is the FRA’s withdrawal of its rulemaking on crew size an “order” as specified in the FRSA?  The court said yes.  The court opined that, for purposes of preemption, it is not the form of the FRA’s ruling that is critical.  It’s the process by which the FRA reached its decision.  In the case of crew size, the FRA clearly considered the subject matter, issued a proposed rulemaking, received thousands of comments on the proposed rule, held public hearings, and elected to withdraw its proposed rule.  The FRA considered the subject matter of crew size, opted not to impose any rules, and specifically stated its ruling was intended to preempt any state rulemaking of the same subject matter. The FRA’s pronouncement qualifies as an “order” under the FRSA.

But is it a valid order?  Did its “promulgation” follow the rules required for implementing a federal order?   The court’s answer to this question was simple:  “we don’t have jurisdiction to answer that question.”  Challenges to the validity of a federal order, by law, must be presented to a Federal Court of Appeals.  The Federal Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the validity of final federal agency actions…and, in fact, the validity of the FRA crew size order is being challenged in the Ninth Circuit in an action consolidating a number of different challenges to the FRA’s order.  Without a Court of Appeals ruling on validity, district courts must presume the agency action is valid.

Hence, the NDIL court ended its decision with a lifeline to the State:  If the Ninth Circuit should deem the order invalid, the State of Illinois can move to have the district court decision vacated.        

 For further information, contact Janet Gilbert at jgilbert@fletcher-sippel.com.

 

 
Our Recent Blog Post
  • FRA ISSUES FINAL CREW SIZE RULE
  • The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act: Proceed at Restricted Speed
  • ORAL FLUID TESTING:  A HEADS UP TO REVIEW YOUR POLICIES!!!
  • Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act: Congress’ New Rule on Work-Place Accommodations for Pregnant Workers
  • PHMSA is proposing new rules on train consist and emergency response information
  • FRA PROPOSED RULES FOR CERTIFICATION OF RAILROAD DISPATCHERS AND SIGNAL EMPLOYEES
  • Final Rule on Oral specimen drug testing
  • Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus NPRM
  • FLETCHER & SIPPEL ADDS AND PROMOTES ATTORNEYS
  • FRA Rule Amendments on Glazing
  • BNSF Loses Illinois Biometric Privacy Lawsuit, Jury’s Verdict Exposes Railroad to up to $228 Million in Damages
  • Bill Sippel
  • NPRM on reflectorization
  • USDOT Solicits Applicants for Crossing Safety Enhancement Grants
  • BNSF California Embargo

You May Have More Employees Than You Think—At Least For FELA Purposes

Previous thumb

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 7, 2020: FRA Publishes Final Rule on Rail Integrity and Track Safety Standards

Next thumb
Scroll

Chicago, Il
29 North Wacker Dr, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606-3208

(312) 252-1500 (Main)
(312) 252-2400 (Fax)

Jackson, MS
4400 Old Canton Road, Suite 220,
Jackson, MS 39211-5982

(601) 414-6009 (Main)
(601) 414-6016 (Fax)



Privacy Policy

©2023 Fletcher & Sippel LLC.  Branding & Designed by Menagery, Inc.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}