LA Port Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Parts of Its Clean Truck Program
According to various press sources, the Port of Los Angeles has filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging it not to overturn four of the Port's Clean Truck Program concession requirements that were upheld by the lower Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Port filed this brief in response to a petition filed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) in December 2011 which sought to appeal the lower court's ruling.
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.
ATA Asked Supreme Court Reverse Lower Court Ruling in December 2011
ATA's petition asks the Supreme Court to review and ultimately reverse the Appeals Court’s finding that the "market participant" exception to federal preemption protects 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. 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.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11122707 for summary of ATA's December 2011 petition.)
Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Hear Case by April 2012
According to an ATA press release, following submission of the Port's brief and an ATA reply filing, the case will be submitted for consideration. A decision as to whether the Supreme Court will hear the appeal will likely be made by 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.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11101202 and 11092701 for summaries of the Ninth Circuit's ruling rejecting the Port's employee-driver rule and upholding other Port concession requirements, and the Port subsequently ending its enforcement of the employee-driver rule.)