Ind. Rail Rd. Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n

576 F.Supp.3d 571

INDIANA RAIL ROAD COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, et al. Defendants,andBrotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, et al., Intervenor-Defendants.

No. 1:19-CV-06466

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed December 21, 2021

Daniel J. Mohan, Sean M. Sullivan, Kerry Mohan, Daley Mohan Groble PC, Chicago, IL, Jacob T. Spencer, Thomas H. DuPree, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Erin Walsh, Hal Dworkin, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge

In August 2019, Illinois enacted a law that requires a minimum of two crew members in order to operate a freight train. Public Act 101-0294. A railroad and two railroad organizations filed this lawsuit against the Illinois Commerce Commission (known by its acronym, the ICC), which is the state agency that would otherwise enforce this minimum crew-size requirement. The Indiana Rail Road Company, the Association of American Railroads, and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (together, referred to as the Railroads) contended that at least three federal laws preempt the Illinois law. R. 1, Compl. On the opposite side from the railroad industry, two Unions successfully sought to intervene to defend the state law (referred to as the Crew Size Law for convenience's sake). R. 33, Int. Order.¹ All parties moved for summary judgment. See R. 49, Pls.’ Mot. Summ. J.; R. 58, Ints.’ Mot. Summ. J.; R. 66, Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.

This is this Court's second attempt to resolve this motion. The Court initially granted the Railroads’ motion on the grounds that the Crew Size Law was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). R. 96. But after a trip to the Seventh Circuit and a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, both of which will be explained further below, the case is back before this Court for consideration on different grounds. For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, the Railroads’ motion for summary judgment is once again granted, and the Defendants’ motion is denied.

I. Background

The facts narrated here are undisputed unless otherwise noted. In deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the respective non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). So, when the Court evaluates the ICC's and the Unions’ summary judgment motions, the Railroads get the benefit of reasonable inferences; conversely, when evaluating the Railroads’ filing, the Court gives the ICC and the Unions the benefit of the doubt.

The Indiana Rail Road Company operates a 250-mile regional railroad in central Illinois and southwest Indiana. R. 50, Pls.’ Stmt. Fact (PSOF) ¶ 1; R. 65, Defs.’ Stmt. Fact (DSOF) ¶ 1. It is a member of two railroad associations: the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. PSOF ¶¶ 7–9; R. 56, Int. Defs.’ Counterstatement (ISOF) ¶¶ 7–8; DSOF ¶¶ 3–5. Back in March 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration (known by its acronym, the FRA) formally gave notice of proposed rules that would affect Indiana Rail Road as well as members of the two associations. FRA, Train Crew Staffing , 81 Fed. Reg. 13,918 (Mar. 15, 2016) ; PSOF ¶ 15; R. 64, Defs.’ Resp. PSOF (DRSOF) ¶ 15. Specifically, the FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on "Train Crew Staffing," proposing regulations for minimum crew sizes for trains depending on the trains’ type of operations. Id. In theory, the rulemaking should have finished up in 12 months, as required by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20103(b), and the FRA's own regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 211.13. But that did not happen, and instead the FRA ended up withdrawing the notice—three years later in May 2019. FRA, Train Crew Staffing , 84 Fed. Reg. 24,735, 24,741 (May 29, 2019) (FRA Withdrawal Order); PSOF ¶ 16; DRSOF ¶ 16. In withdrawing the proposed regulation, the FRA announced "that no regulation of train crew staffing is necessary or appropriate at this time and [the FRA] intends for the withdrawal to preempt all state laws attempting to regulate train crew staffing in any manner." FRA Withdrawal Order at 24,741; PSOF ¶ 16; DRSOF ¶ 16; ISOF ¶ 16.

As it happens, on May 21, 2019—just days before the FRA's withdrawal of the proposed rule-making—the Illinois General Assembly amended the Illinois Vehicle Code to mandate a minimum crew size of two: "No rail carrier shall operate or cause to operate a train or light engine used in connection with the movement of freight unless it has an operating crew of at least 2 individuals." P.A. 101-0294, § 2d; DSOF ¶¶ 13–14; R. 70, Pls.’ Resp. to DSOF (PRSOF) ¶¶ 13–14. The asserted purpose of this law, which the parties call the Crew Size Law, was to "enhance public safety by establishing a minimum freight train operating crew size to address the transportation of all freight." Crew Size Law, § 1. Following the May 21, 2019 enactment of the law, the Governor signed the Crew Size Law on August 9, 2019. DSOF ¶ 14; PRSOF ¶ 14.

A month after the Governor signed the law, the Indiana Rail Road brought this lawsuit against the Illinois Commerce Commission seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that: (1) the Crew Size Law is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act; (2) the law is preempted by a federal statute known as the "3R Act"; (3) the law is preempted by the ICC Termination Act; and (4) the law is unenforceable under its own sunset provision. R. 1, Compl. Although the Crew Size Law was to take effect on January 1, 2020, the Illinois Commerce Commission agreed to stay its enforcement pending the resolution of this case. PSOF ¶¶ 18, 19; DRSOF ¶¶ 18, 19. After giving the parties a chance to confer on whether any discovery was needed (the answer was no), R. 33, the parties and the Intervenor-Unions filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

In late 2020, this Court held that the Crew Size Law was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, because the Federal Railroad Administration had issued a Withdrawal Order in 2019 announcing that one-person crews were permitted, and the Order was presumptively valid. R. 96, Mem. Op. and Order at 5–11. Indeed, as the Opinion explained, only federal Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the Withdrawal Order, and a challenge was underway in the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 8–9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2342(7) ). The Court thus granted the Railroads’ motion for summary judgment. Id.

But early in 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Withdrawal Order, holding that the Federal Railroad Administration violated the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing the Order, and that the Order was arbitrary and capricious. Transp. Div. of the Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, & Transp. Workers v. Fed. R.R. Admin. , 988 F.3d 1170, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2021). Meanwhile, this Illinois case was, at that time, on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The State Defendants asked this Court to indicate whether it would vacate the judgment previously entered in the Railroads’ favor if the case were remanded. R. 115. This Court indicated that it would vacate the order on remand, and simultaneously set a briefing schedule for supplemental briefs on the assumption that the remand would take place. R. 119, Minute Entry. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case in July. R. 121, Seventh Circuit Order. The parties have submitted supplementary briefing in support of their positions. R. 120, Defs.’ Supp. Br; R. 123, Pls’. Supp. Br.; R. 129, Ints’. Supp Br.; R. 130, Defs’. Supp. Resp.; R. 131, Pls’. Supp. Reply.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment must be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In evaluating summary judgment motions, courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations, Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. , 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2011), and must consider only evidence that can "be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Carmichael v. Village of Palatine , 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Wheeler v. Lawson , 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). If this burden is met, the adverse party must then "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. Analysis

Because this Court originally held that the Crew Size Law was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), the Court declined to decide whether the Crew Size Law was also invalid for the other reasons put forward by the Railroads. Mem. Op. and Order at 5. Now that the Ninth Circuit has held that the Withdrawal Order was invalid, meaning the FRSA does not preempt the Crew Size Law, it is time to turn to the Railroads’ other arguments. As an initial matter, the Railroads’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remains dismissed; the Court previously granted the Defendants summary judgment on that claim, and ...