ATA Asks Supreme Court to Review LA Port Truck Rules
On December 22, 2011, the American Trucking Associations filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s holding in ATA’s challenge to the Port of Los Angeles concession program requirements. Although ATA prevailed on the primary issue in the case, securing a ruling striking down the Port’s independent contractor ban, other components of the program were upheld which ATA is appealing.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Petitions for Reversal of Certain Port Concession Program Requirements
ATA's petition asks the Court to review and ultimately reverse the Appeals Court’s finding that the "market participant" exception to federal preemption protected the Port's concession program requirements such as (1) an off-street parking mandate, (2) a placarding rule, (3) truck maintenance requirements, and (4) a financial capability provision.
Also Questions Statutory Language on "Market Participation," Etc.
The petition also seeks review of the Appeals Court's determination that the Port has authority to decide which motor carriers may operate in interstate commerce at the Port. The petition presents questions related to the statutory language of 49 USC 14501(c)(1), which sets the federal-state parameters on how or whether a state can regulate motor carriers.1
Specifically, ATA raises questions concerning (1) the preemptive scope of the statute in relation to required concession agreements setting out various conditions a motor carrier must meet to serve a particular port; (2) the scope and applicability of the "market-participant" exception and whether it conflicts with the express preemption clause (and in effect gives the port wider authority than the much narrower law); and (3) the enduring vitality of the Supreme Court's decision in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. (1954), which is a longstanding precedent precluding states from enforcing regulations that amount to a partial suspension of a federally licensed motor carrier's grant of nation-wide operating authority.
Court to Decide Whether to Hear Appeal by April 2012
Following submission of a brief by the Port by the end of January and an ATA reply filing, the case will be submitted for consideration. A decision as to whether the Court will hear the appeal will likely be made by approximately April 2012.
If the Court takes the case, more filings will be made and then oral arguments may be set for the beginning of October 2012.
1Pursuant to this statute, a state or political subdivision may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property (express preemption clause). Such broad preemption fosters a deregulatory policy aimed at ensuring that prices, routes, and services reflect "maximum reliance on competitive market forces" free from the inefficiencies created by a multitude of local regulatory schemes.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11111617 for summary of ATA's plan to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling at the Supreme Court.
See ITT's Online Archives 11101202 and 11092701 for summaries of the Ninth Circuit's ruling rejecting the Port's employee-driver rule and the Port subsequently ending its enforcement of the rule.)
ATA petition is available here.
ATA press release is available via email by sending a request to documents@brokerpower.com.