⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears Norfolk Southern versus Soo Line, which operates as Canadian Pacific. This case concerns a rail connection used to move freight between Detroit and Chicago. In 2005, Norfolk Southern gave Canadian Pacific long-term rights to run trains over part of its network. A separate interchange agreement allowed those trains to connect to Gibson Yard through tracks controlled by Norfolk Southern and Conrail, with Indiana Harbor Belt handling the interchange. Norfolk Southern signed that second agreement as a consenting party, rather than as the railroad performing the interchange service. It later sued to end its obligations, arguing that the second agreement sets no fixed end date for it and can be terminated on reasonable notice. The practical dispute is whether a connection needed to make the longer-term route work can be withdrawn separately. After a bench trial, the district court treated the two agreements as linked and ruled that Norfolk Southern could not terminate the interchange agreement before 2040. Norfolk Southern will argue that Indiana contract law does not justify combining these different agreements. It will also argue that the trial judge had promised not to reopen that issue, so it prepared its evidence for a different question. Canadian Pacific will defend both the linked-contract reading and the fairness of the trial. Listen for two separate questions: what the railroads actually agreed to, and whether Norfolk Southern had a fair opportunity to try the issue that ultimately decided the case.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Soo Line Railroad Company (No. 26-1877) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 12, 2026.