January 11, 2013
Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:
Motor Carriers—Interstate Commerce Act—Federal Preemption
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) includes a provision that expressly preempts certain state and local regulation of trucking. In relevant part, it provides that “a State [or] political subdivision of a State…may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier…with respect to the transportation of property.” See 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).
Since 2008, the Port of Los Angeles has required all motor carriers that provide drayage services to shipping lines using the Port to enter into “concession agreements.” These agreements require the motor carriers to comply with requirements such as submitting an off-street-parking plan and demonstrating financial responsibility. Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 11-798, to consider (1) whether the requirements at issue are justified under a “market participant” exception to the FAAAA’s express-preemption provision and (2) whether Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954), which precludes municipalities from enforcing regulations that limit the operating authority of federally licensed motor carriers, prohibits these requirements.
ATA, a national association of motor carriers, sued the City and Port of Los Angeles, contending that the concession-agreement requirements were expressly preempted. The district court upheld the disputed requirements, ruling in part that the Port was acting as a market participant. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the off-street-parking and like provisions were permissible under a market-participant exception to preemption because they served the Port’s interest as a “facilities manager.” The court of appeals rejected ATA’s additional argument that the concession-agreement requirements were invalid under Castle because they improperly limited the operating authority of a federally licensed motor carrier
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be of interest to motor carriers and others because it will clarify the scope of the FAAAA’s preemption provision as well as of similar preemption provisions in other federal statutes. The decision will also clarify whether Castle independently limits the ability of municipal entities to restrict the operations of federally licensed motor carriers.
Absent extensions, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners will be due on March 27, 2013, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent will be due on April 3, 2013. Any questions about this case should be directed to Andrew Tauber (+1 202-263-3324) in our Washington office.
On Monday, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in the following case of interest to the business community:
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, No. 12-315: The questions presented are (1) whether a court can deny the immunity from liability provided by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (which shields airlines from liability for reporting security threats to the Transportation Security Administration) without first deciding whether a report is true; and (2) whether the First Amendment requires a reviewing court in a defamation case to make an independent examination of the record before affirming that a plaintiff met its burden of proving that a statement was false.
Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Richard B. Katskee, their general editor, at email@example.com or +1 202 263 3222).
Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Docket Report.
Please visit us at appellate.net
Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and distributes a Docket Report-Decision Alert whenever the Court decides such a case. We hope you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at firstname.lastname@example.org or +1 202 263 3324).
Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on
legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are
not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended
to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking
any action with respect to the matters discussed.