This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court affirmed the lower‑court judgment in an equally divided decision.
Justice Barrett did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner was represented by David C. Frederick, Esq.; the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner; Respondent was represented by J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
The case centered on the definition of when a locomotive is considered “in use” under the Safety Appliance Act.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to David C. Frederick, petitioner argues that the 1904 Johnson v. Southern Pacific decision, which held that a motionless dining car was “in use” when a worker’s hand was crushed while coupling, supports its view of the statute.
Respondent Position
According to J. Scott Ballenger, respondent contends that the petitioner and the government are rewriting the statute; the issues about draining fluids and unhooking batteries are not found in the statutory text.
According to J. Scott Ballenger, respondent further points out that the regulations define a “dead locomotive movement” as a movement when the locomotive is not applying tractive power and that the locomotive may be idling.
What happened at oral argument
The oral argument began with appearances by counsel for the petitioner, an amicus, and the respondent.
Justices asked several questions about the meaning of terms such as “safe to operate,” “placed into service,” and the appropriate theory of statutory interpretation.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh inquired whether a locomotive stored on a side track for a few days is considered “in storage” only after fuel is drained and the battery disconnected.
Justice Kagan asked whether the statute imposes obligations on railroads before a train starts moving and whether unhooking the battery and draining fluid are required steps.
- [1] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 23
- [3] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 44
- [4] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 53
- [5] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 65
- [6] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 68
- [7] 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdf, p. 87
What the Court decided
The judgment was affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.
Why it matters
Terms to know
- in use
- A railcar, including a locomotive, which is a car under the Safety Appliance Act, comes into use when it is moving or shortly before movement if all inspections have been completed and it is deemed ready for imminent movement.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 20d8e00d86483a52c224-r1-226b539cbf9bfae9.pdforal argument transcript
- ac5a7e2476c74eca62c7-r1-607a38d079cbc8a9.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.