BNSF Wins Federal Preemption Challenge to Minnesota Blocked-Crossing Law, Defeats Younger Abstention Bid

MINNEAPOLIS (LN) — A federal judge in Minnesota refused June 8 to abstain from hearing BNSF Railway Company’s challenge to a state law that makes it a crime for railroads to block public crossings for longer than 10 minutes, ruling the railroad’s preemption claim is strong enough to overcome the Younger doctrine.

U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank denied motions to dismiss filed by the City of Wadena and County Attorney Kyra Ladd, who are prosecuting BNSF in Minnesota district court for two separate blockages at city intersections in late 2025.

BNSF filed its federal complaint January 26, arguing that the ICC Termination Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempt Minnesota’s Blocked-Crossing Statute. The statute, enacted in 2025, imposes petty misdemeanor penalties for first offenses and misdemeanor charges for subsequent violations.

According to the amended complaint, an electrical malfunction on BNSF’s rail line caused safety arms to lower and block three Wadena intersections on two occasions. The first blockage lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours; the second approximately one hour.

The city, through Ladd, cited BNSF under the statute after each incident. Those state prosecutions remain pending.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Younger v. Harris, arguing federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The court agreed the three-part Younger inquiry pointed toward abstention but found an exception applies: when a federal preemption claim is facially conclusive.

“Preemption is facially conclusive based on the plain meaning of the ICCTA’s preemption provision and the Blocked-Crossing Statute,” Frank wrote. The judge concluded the statute “attempts to regulate railway corporations’ decisions on train movement,” which falls within matters exclusively regulated by the Surface Transportation Board under the ICCTA.

The court acknowledged the Eighth Circuit has not explicitly adopted the facially conclusive exception but found it supported by pre-NOPSI circuit precedent and persuasive authority from the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. Frank also rejected the city’s argument that the exception should not apply to underlying criminal proceedings.

The ruling clears the way for BNSF’s preemption challenge to proceed while the state prosecutions continue.