Local Port-Trucking Regulations Utilizing Criminal Penalties Pre-Empted by Federal Law
July 10, 2013 by Andrew Baker
Labor and environmental groups have worked together for years to clean up our nation’s ports and improve the working conditions for truck drivers who haul into and out of the ports. In a recent decision striking down one such effort, the Supreme Court partially reversed a Ninth Circuit decision by unanimously holding that local trucking regulations relying on criminal penalties for enforcement are pre-empted by Federal law. In American Trucking Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles, the Court invalidated the provisions of the Port of Los Angeles’ “Clean Trucks Program” which required drivers to display identification placards and to submit to an off-site parking program. The “Clean Trucks Program” was adopted to mitigate opposition from environmental and community groups to a Port expansion, and criminal penalties were assessed on those who violated the regulations.
The Port argued, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that the regulations were not pre-empted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA) because the regulations were part of a contract with the terminal operators; thus the Port was acting as a “market participant” in enacting the regulations, rather than as a regulatory body exercising the “force and effect of law.” The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that in relying on criminal penalties to enforce the regulations the Port was exercising “classic regulatory authority.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s focus on the motive behind the regulation. The Port argued that the “Clean Trucks Program” was required in order to lessen community opposition which has stymied the Port’s planned expansion. Thus, the Port argued, the rules were motivated by a business necessity and undertaken by the Port as a market participant. The Supreme Court made it clear that no matter the motive, whenever government regulates using “the hammer of the criminal law,” the regulation will not qualify for the market-participant exception to pre-emption.
We at Beeson, Tayer and Bodine are keeping current with various law related issues; check out our blog for updates regarding labor law news as well as our other law practice areas.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
