American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

1. Whether an unexpressed “market participant” exception exists in Section 1450(c)(1) and permits a municipal governmental entity to take action that conflicts with the express preemption clause, occurs in a market in which the municipal entity does not participate, and is unconnected with any interest in the efficient procurement of services.
2. Whether a required concession agreement setting out various conditions a motor carrier must meet to serve a particular port imposes any requirements that are “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier” for the purposes of preemption under Section 1450(c)(1).
    

NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear a lawsuit brought by the American Trucking Associations challenging efforts by the Port of Los Angeles to regulate the harbor drayage industry. The ATA claims that the truck concession portion of the Port's "Clean Truck Program" is expressly preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Even though the FAAAA expressly bars state and local governments from imposing their own regulations on interstate trucking, the Ninth Circuit claimed that the Port could impose rules on trucks transporting shipping containers because the Port was allegedly acting as a “market participant” in its capacity as a "landlord," rather than as a regulator. NCLC's amicus brief to the Supreme Court argued that the Ninth Circuit's far-reaching opinion could have implications far beyond the trucking industry. NCLC explained that the plain text of the FAAAA includes no such market participation exception, nor should the courts be empowered to judicially graft such exceptions onto statutes whenever the courts see fit. Moreover, NCLC argued, the Port is clearly operating in a regulatory rather than market capacity. NCLC’s brief warned that if the Ninth Circuit’s decision is upheld, then express-preemption provisions in the FAAAA and other federal statutes will be easily circumvented.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear this case.

Amicus brief filed 1/23/2012.