Whether the Iowa Supreme Court erred in holding that state laws of general application addressing primarily public safety issues and with only an incidental impact on rail transportation are preempted by the ICCTA, especially given the ICCTA's failure to supply any alternative remedy

QUESTION PRESENTED The Petitioners are property owners in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who asserted a number of Iowa statutory and common law claims against Respondent railroad companies. The railroad companies parked laden rail cars on low level bridges spanning the Cedar River in advance of a flood, effectively damming up the river and diverting flood waters into downtown Cedar Rapids and the surrounding areas. The Iowa Supreme Court, in a four to three ruling, held that the Petitioners’ state law claims were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”), in spite of the fact that the ICCTA provided no alternative remedies for the property owners. The following question is presented: Whether the Iowa Supreme Court erred in holding that state laws of general application addressing primarily public safety issues and with only an incidental impact on rail transportation are preempted by the ICCTA, especially given the ICCTA’s failure to supply any alternative remedy.