Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

A 63-year-old man with a history of sciatica and alcohol-use disorder attempted to board a city bus in Indianapolis. Earlier that day, he had been hospitalized for intoxication but was released while still mildly intoxicated. That evening, after waiting at a bus stop, he approached a bus as it was preparing to leave. As the bus pulled away, he lost his balance and fell into the road, where he was run over and later died from his injuries. At the time of the incident, his blood-alcohol content was approximately 0.261. His mother, acting as the personal representative of his estate, filed a wrongful death suit against the public transportation corporation, alleging negligence.The Marion Superior Court presided over a jury trial in which the transportation corporation argued that the decedent was contributorily negligent, which would bar recovery. The jury viewed video footage of the incident and heard testimony regarding the decedent’s physical condition and intoxication. After deliberation, the jury found in favor of the estate and awarded damages, later reduced by statutory limits. The transportation corporation moved for judgment on the evidence and, after the verdict, for a motion to correct error, both of which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the decedent contributorily negligent as a matter of law.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and reviewed the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct error de novo. The Court held that the evidence, including the video footage and testimony, did not establish as a matter of law that the decedent was contributorily negligent. Multiple reasonable inferences could be drawn from the evidence, so the jury’s verdict was not clearly erroneous or unsupported. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct error. View "Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation v. Bush" on Justia Law

Several commercial air tour operators challenged federal regulations that banned all commercial air tours over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park. The dispute arose after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service, in response to statutory requirements and litigation, issued air tour management plans (ATMPs) in 2023 that prohibited such tours, citing negative impacts on visitor experience, wildlife, and tribal cultural resources. The operators argued that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and failed to consider reasonable alternatives or aviation safety.Previously, the agencies had attempted to negotiate voluntary agreements with the tour operators, as permitted by the Air Tour Management Act. However, after one operator declined to participate, the agencies shifted to developing ATMPs. This change was influenced by a writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compelled the agencies to bring certain parks into compliance with the Act. The agencies then considered several alternatives before ultimately banning all commercial air tours in the final plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the petitions for review filed by the tour operators. The court held that the agencies’ decision to end voluntary agreement negotiations and proceed with ATMPs was not arbitrary or capricious. It further found that the agencies complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, used reasonable data, considered an adequate range of alternatives, and sufficiently addressed aviation safety concerns. The court concluded that the agencies’ decisions were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions to vacate the air tour management plans. View "Badger Helicopters Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners and operators of a tourist attraction, Bear World, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) over the closure of an intersection on Highway 20 in Madison County, Idaho. Bear Crest Limited LLC owns parcels of land leased to Yellowstone Bear World Inc., and Michael Ferguson is associated with both entities. In 1973, the original landowners (the Gideons) conveyed land to ITD’s predecessor for highway expansion, reserving “Access to the County Road Connection.” In 2016, as part of a highway upgrade to controlled-access status, ITD closed the intersection nearest Bear World, requiring visitors to use a more circuitous route, increasing travel distance by about five miles.After the intersection closure, the plaintiffs sued ITD for breach of contract and inverse condemnation, arguing that the closure violated the reserved access right in the Gideon deed and constituted a taking of property without just compensation. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Madison County, granted summary judgment to ITD, finding that the deed did not guarantee access to Highway 20, only to a county road, and that the closure did not amount to a compensable taking since alternative access remained.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed in part, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded. The Court held that Bear Crest Limited had standing and that the Gideon deed unambiguously reserved access to the specific Highway 20 connection, not merely to a county road. The Court found that ITD’s closure of the intersection breached the deed and substantially impaired Bear Crest’s access rights, constituting a taking under Idaho law. The Court directed entry of partial summary judgment for Bear Crest on both claims, reserving damages and other issues for further proceedings. View "Bear Crest Limited LLC v. State of idaho" on Justia Law

In 2022, a Colorado town enacted an ordinance restricting most vehicles from entering its pedestrian malls, with certain exceptions, including one for high-volume commercial carriers making frequent deliveries. In 2023, the town amended the ordinance to remove this exception, leaving only a provision allowing a town-approved contractor to deliver goods in the pedestrian areas. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association, representing trucking companies, challenged the amended ordinance, arguing it was preempted by federal law, and sought a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a preliminary injunction against the amended ordinance, finding the Association was likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm. However, the court declined to enjoin the original ordinance, reasoning that the Association had not demonstrated irreparable injury, particularly given its delay in bringing suit after the original ordinance had been in effect for over a year. Both parties appealed: the town challenged the injunction against the amended ordinance, while the Association cross-appealed the denial of relief against the original ordinance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the amended ordinance likely fell within the federal statutory safety exceptions, as it regulated with respect to motor vehicles and was genuinely responsive to safety concerns, based on legislative intent and a logical nexus to pedestrian safety. The court found the district court had erred in concluding the Association was likely to succeed on the merits and thus abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Regarding the original ordinance, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the Association’s delay in seeking relief undercut its claim of irreparable harm. The court reversed the injunction against the amended ordinance and remanded with instructions to dissolve it, while affirming the denial of relief as to the original ordinance. View "Colorado Motor v. Town of Vail" on Justia Law

West Central Agri Services operates a grain handling facility in Missouri, where employees load grain into railcars by accessing the tops of the cars, which are about fifteen feet above the ground. Employees open and close lids on the railcars to facilitate grain transfer, and a Trackmobile moves the railcars into position. An OSHA inspector, investigating an unrelated explosion, discovered that employees frequently worked atop railcars without wearing fall protection personal protective equipment (PPE), despite the facility having a fall protection system in place on one track and safety training instructing use of such equipment. Supervisors were aware of the lack of PPE use, and employees were not disciplined for noncompliance.Following the investigation, the Secretary of Labor cited West Central for a willful and serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i), which requires employers to ensure employees use appropriate PPE for identified hazards. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citation and imposed a penalty of $122,878.80, finding that West Central recognized the fall hazard and failed to enforce PPE use. The Commission denied discretionary review of the ALJ’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has exercised statutory authority over the working conditions on top of railcars, specifically through its 1978 policy statement asserting jurisdiction over walking-working surfaces and employee protection around railcars. As a result, the FRA’s authority preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1). The court vacated the citation and reversed the ALJ’s order, concluding that OSHA cannot enforce its PPE regulation for employees working on top of railcars at this facility. View "MFA Enterprises, Inc. v. OSHRC" on Justia Law

An electronics technician employed by a regional transit authority was killed while working at a maintenance yard. His estate, through its administrator, brought suit against the transit authority and its parent entity, seeking recovery under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which provides a federal cause of action for employees of “common carriers by railroad” injured or killed during their employment. The transit line in question, known as the Speed Line, operates a 14.5-mile route between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Lindenwold, New Jersey, providing frequent, high-capacity passenger service within a single metropolitan area. The Speed Line uses a third-rail electric system incompatible with other regional railroads, does not carry freight, and is not integrated with other rail lines.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, allowing jurisdictional discovery. After discovery, the District Court granted the renewed motion to dismiss, holding that the Speed Line is an urban rapid transit system rather than a railroad, and therefore FELA does not apply. The estate appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the Speed Line is not a “common carrier by railroad” within the meaning of FELA. The court reasoned that the Speed Line’s services—short-haul, high-frequency passenger transportation within a single urban area—and its lack of integration with other railroads or freight operations, place it outside the scope of FELA. The court concluded that, as a rapid transit system, the Speed Line is not subject to FELA, and thus the federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the estate’s FELA claim. View "Estate of Schroeder v. Port Authority Transit Corp." on Justia Law

In 2020, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed a rule to address insider threats in airports, specifically targeting the risk that aviation workers with unescorted access to secured areas could facilitate the introduction of weapons or dangerous items onto aircraft. Instead of following the usual public notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), TSA provided notice and an opportunity to comment only to airport operators. The finalized rule, known as the National Amendment, required major airports to physically screen aviation workers entering certain secured areas and to acquire explosives-detection equipment. Noncompliance could result in civil enforcement actions by TSA.After TSA finalized the National Amendment in April 2023, various municipalities operating airports and a trade organization, Airport Council International-North America (ACI-NA), submitted timely requests for reconsideration, arguing that TSA lacked statutory authority, that the APA required public notice and comment, and that the rule unlawfully compelled local officials to implement a federal scheme. TSA denied all reconsideration requests, maintaining that its own regulations permitted it to amend airport security programs by providing notice and comment only to affected operators. The petitioners then sought review of TSA’s denial in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the National Amendment is a legislative rule subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, which TSA failed to follow. The court vacated the National Amendment but withheld its mandate, allowing TSA time to promulgate a procedurally proper rule or inform the court if no rule is needed. The court required TSA to submit periodic status reports until a final resolution. View "City of Billings v. TSA" on Justia Law

Two affiliated freight railroad companies challenged a series of security directives issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that required certain high-risk and strategically significant railroads to implement extensive cybersecurity measures. These directives, which were updated annually, imposed significant compliance costs and were motivated by ongoing and evolving threats from foreign adversaries such as Russia and China. The railroads argued that the directives should have undergone notice-and-comment rulemaking and that the ongoing nature of the cybersecurity threat did not constitute an “emergency” justifying bypassing those procedures.The petitioners sought direct review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as permitted by statute, after the TSA issued new versions of the directives in May 2024, July 2024, and May 2025. The court consolidated the challenges because the directives were substantively identical. The railroads argued that TSA was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking, perform a cost-benefit analysis, and that TSA lacked statutory authority to issue the directives. They also contended that the directives were arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the petitions. The court held that the ongoing cybersecurity threats described in the directives constituted an emergency within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 114(l)(2), allowing TSA to bypass notice-and-comment procedures. The court further held that TSA was not required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for security directives, as the relevant statutory provision applied only to regulations, not directives. The court also found that TSA had sufficient statutory authority to issue the directives and that the directives were not arbitrary or capricious. The petitions for review were therefore denied. View "Grand Trunk Corp. v. Transportation Security Administration" on Justia Law

A United States citizen, formerly known as Paul Anderson and now Saadiq Long, was placed on the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist) and, at one point, on its No Fly List subset. After experiencing travel restrictions, employment issues, and other alleged harms, Long challenged his placement on these lists, asserting constitutional and statutory violations. He claimed that his inclusion was based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, and protected activities, and that the government’s information-sharing practices and redress procedures were unlawful. While the litigation was ongoing, Long was removed from the No Fly List, but remained on the broader Watchlist. He also alleged that his Watchlist status led to the denial of credentials necessary for his work as a truck driver.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially transferred some of Long’s claims to the Fourth Circuit and stayed others. After Long’s removal from the No Fly List, a prior Fourth Circuit panel found his No Fly List claims moot and remanded for the district court to determine which claims remained justiciable. On remand, the district court dismissed all of Long’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that his removal from the No Fly List mooted those claims and that he lacked standing for his Watchlist-related claims, as his alleged injuries were either resolved or not sufficiently imminent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre, Long’s removal from the No Fly List did not necessarily moot his claims, as the government had not shown it could not repeat the challenged conduct. The court also found that Long had standing to challenge his Watchlist status based on the denial of transportation credentials, and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of his claims. View "Long v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Three California-based truck drivers who worked for a national transportation company challenged the legality of their employer’s compensation system. The drivers alleged that the company’s pay plan, which combined hourly wages with a bonus based on certain activities, violated California’s Labor Code by failing to properly compensate for nonproductive time and by not reimbursing necessary business expenses, such as personal cell phone use. They also claimed the company failed to provide accurate wage statements and sought penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.After the case was removed from state court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the employer on most claims. The court found that the pay plan qualified for a statutory “safe harbor” because it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked, with additional bonuses for certain activities, and thus did not require separate compensation for nonproductive time. The court also found no evidence that the employer knew or should have known about any off-the-clock work. The only claims that proceeded to trial were for failure to reimburse business expenses. At trial, the jury found in favor of the employer, and the court entered judgment accordingly, also awarding costs to the employer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the employer’s pay plan met the requirements of California Labor Code § 226.2(a)(7)’s safe harbor, as it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and provided additional bonuses. The court also found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-the-clock work or wage statement violations, and it upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and award of costs. View "WILLIAMS V. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC." on Justia Law