At about 1:45 a.m. on a bitterly cold and snowy morning in January 2002, a Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed near Minot, N.D., spilling 210,000 gallons of ammonia. The liquid quickly vaporized, creating a massive toxic cloud that enveloped unfortunate neighborhoods nearby, killing one man that night and forcing 1,605 to seek medical attention.
The National Transportation Safety Board ultimately determined the wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and inspections. Hundreds of victims stepped forward to file suits in North Dakota state court looking to hold the negligent Canadian Pacific Railway accountable for its obvious and devastating misconduct.
But the residents of Minot might find themselves deprived of the opportunity to hold the railroad responsible for its misdeeds. And it all has to do with the legal principle of preemption.
Preemption holds that a federal law can supersede or supplant any inconsistent state law or regulation. When preemption occurs, state law on a given subject is invalidated and the federal law substituted in its place.
Canadian Pacific failed to meet federal minimum standards as set out under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. But the very fact that federal minimum standards were in place is preventing victims from filing claims in state court. Essentially, that equates to no enforcement. States are left powerless to adopt and enforce tough safety standards regulating the operations of railroads within their borders.
Recently, the Federal District Court in North Dakota, in Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D.N.D. 2006), dismissed all claims filed against Canadian Pacific on the basis of federal preemption.
According to Sharon L. Van Dyck, an attorney with the Minneapolis, Minnesota, law firm Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, FRSA has been “perverted by courts who apply the doctrine of preemption to deprive Americans grievously injured in railroad accidents of any remedy, even when it is undisputed that the cause of the accident was the railroad’s failure to live up to those minimum federal standards.’’
Transportation isn’t the only area affected by preemption. The wording in many recent federal regulations could deal the states out of adopting protections on everything from food to consumer goods.
Regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies are intended to be minimum standards, meaning they generally aren’t difficult to meet and often don’t reach far enough to legitimately protect the American public.
It goes without saying that individual states are better positioned to determine the needs of the citizens within their borders than the far-flung federal government. What works in South Carolina may not work in Idaho. Slipping all 50 states into a one-size-fits-all strait jacket does the public a grave disservice – especially when that one size isn’t even met.
The federal government is undermining the states for one prevalent reason -- because corporate CEOS are demanding that all barriers to further enriching themselves be removed regardless of consequences to the public health and safety. Giant drug, oil and food cartels want pesky state regulations intended to protect the public from deadly pharmaceuticals, excessive pollution and rotting chickens to simply disappear.