No. 23-669

Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC, et al. v. Chad Marsh

Lower Court: Massachusetts
Docketed: 2023-12-21
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: conflict-preemption economic-regulation federal-preemption field-preemption iccta-preemption interstate-commerce massachusetts-prevailing-wage-act rail-transportation railroad-regulation state-wage-law
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA DueProcess WageAndHour LaborRelations JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-05-09 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the ICCTA preempts Massachusetts' prevailing wage act for railroad maintenance workers

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), in an issue of first impression and upon a sua sponte transfer from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, held that the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law, Mass.Gen.Law ch. 149, §§ 26-27H, was not preempted by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 10501 et seg. (“ICCTA”). In rendering its decision, the SJC ignored the plain and expansive preemption language of the ICCTA that “the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.” 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). The SJC’s decision also ignored a long line of federal cases that held that the ICCTA expressly preempts state statutes regulating a railroad’s economic decisions. The doctrine of implied preemption also applies here in the form of both “field” and “conflict” preemption, and the SJC was required to apply such preemption as it pertains to the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law. The question presented is: 1. Whether the ICCTA preempts Massachusetts’ prevailing wage act for railroad maintenance workers. I

Docket Entries

2024-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-04-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2024.
2024-04-15
Reply of petitioners Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-04-08
Letter from former counsel of record for petitioner submitted.
2024-03-29
2024-02-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 29, 2024.
2024-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 28, 2024 to March 29, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-01-29
Response Requested. (Due February 28, 2024)
2024-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-12
Waiver of right of respondent Chad Marsh to respond filed.
2023-12-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2024)

Attorneys

Chad Marsh
Raven MoeslingerLaw Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C., Respondent
Nandan Maheshchandra JoshiPublic Citizen Litigation Group, Respondent
Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC, et al.
Alvin Saul NathansonNathanson & Goldberg, PC, Petitioner