October Term 2011 · Docket 10-879

Does federal law block state asbestos claims?

the sides that brought the case seek dismissal of state asbestos claims. the opposing sides seek to keep those claims alive.

Official caption
Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Smith asserted the LIA does not cover broader regulatory authority.

    Ms. Harrington urged the Court to separate field and conflict preemption.

    Mr. Frederick stated Congress intended the LIA for locomotive safety in use.

    Mr. Hacker argued the DOT holds exclusive authority over locomotive design.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests if federal locomotive rules block state asbestos claims.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the state claims dismissed.

the opposing sides want the state claims to continue.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue federal law preempts state claims.

the opposing sides argue federal law does not preempt state claims.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the argument depends on asbestos staying inside.

Justice Sotomayor asked how the ICC regulated yard lights in 1916.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of federal regulatory power. It determines which law governs workplace safety disputes. It shapes future litigation over industrial materials.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON