Latest News

US Supreme Court rejects CSX's bid to revive antitrust lawsuit against Norfolk Southern

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear the freight rail giant CSX’s bid to revive an antitrust suit accusing Norfolk Southern of restricting illegally access to a major East Coast terminal in Virginia. CSX lost hundreds of millions in profits.

The Justices rejected an appeal from CSX against a ruling by a lower court last year that said the Jacksonville, Florida based company had sued too late and missed a four-year window for bringing claims under U.S. Antitrust Law. CSX argued that the statute of limitation should not apply to its lawsuit.

CSX filed a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern in Virginia in 2018. The court accused the rival shipper, Norfolk Southern, of conspiring to charge excessive fees for services at Virginia’s Norfolk International Terminals - one of the East Coast's most important terminals.

Norfolk Terminal is used by large international container ships to unload cargo on trains and trucks bound for inland destinations.

Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line is a small railroad, majority owned by Norfolk Southern, that provides track and "switching services" at the terminal.

CSX doesn't own the tracks at docks, so it has to pay for access. The suit alleged that Norfolk Southern, Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line and Norfolk Southern in 2009 had set a $210 track rate per railcar that is still in effect today.

According to the CSX suit, Norfolk Southern's advantage allowed it to artificially raise prices for ocean carriers who rely on Norfolk terminal. CSX claims it is prohibited from entering profitable contracts with ocean carriers.

CSX stated that Norfolk Southern's practice to allegedly overcharge for terminal access continued each day it was in place. Therefore, the four-year statute should not have barred the filing of a lawsuit.

Richmond, Virginia's 4th U.S. In 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a court's dismissal of CSX lawsuit. The 4th Circuit ruled that Norfolk Southern's rail charges did not "inflict any new harm causing a new injury to CSX in the limitations period."

In its appeal to Supreme Court, CSX claimed that the 4th Circuit decision created an immunity shield which allows Norfolk Southern to sidestep competition at their terminal in Norfolk.

Norfolk Southern, in its submission to the Supreme Court said CSX had "sat on their hands" for 9 years before filing a suit.

Norfolk Southern stated that the 4th Circuit correctly determined that the date 2009 when the rate was established "was outside of the statutes of limitations and that maintaining this rate was an inaction which did not retrigger statutes of limitations on a day-to-day basis."

(source: Reuters)