Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 434

529US2

Unit: $U45

[09-26-01 10:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 344 (2000)

359

Breyer, J., concurring

other than automatic gates and ﬂashing lights were appro-
priate, its decision was subject to the approval of the FHWA.
See § 646.214(b)(4). Once the FHWA approved the project
and the signs were installed using federal funds, the federal
standard for adequacy displaced Tennessee statutory and
common law addressing the same subject, thereby pre-
empting respondent’s claim.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer, concurring.
I agree with Justice Ginsburg that “common sense and
sound policy” suggest that federal minimum safety stand-
ards should not pre-empt a state tort action claiming that in
the particular circumstance a railroad’s warning device re-
mains inadequate. Post, at 360 (dissenting opinion). But the
Federal Government has the legal power to do more. And,
as the majority points out, ante, at 353–356, the speciﬁc Fed-
eral Highway Administration regulations at issue here do,
in fact, do more—when read in light of CSX Transp., Inc. v.
Easterwood, 507 U. S. 658 (1993), which faithfully replicates
the Government’s own earlier interpretation. So read, they
say that once federal funds are requested and spent to install
warning devices at a grade crossing, the regulations’ stand-
ards of adequacy apply across the board and pre-empt state
law seeking to impose an independent duty on a railroad
with respect to the adequacy of warning devices installed.
Id., at 671; ante, at 357.
I see no need here to reconsider
the relevant language in this Court’s earlier opinion be-
cause the Government itself can easily avoid the pre-emption
that it previously sought.
It can simply change the relevant
regulations, for example, by specifying that federal money is
sometimes used for “minimum,” not “adequate,” programs,
which minimum programs lack pre-emptive force. The