The US Supreme Court on Jan. 11 agreed to hear a petition by
the American Trucking Associations against aspects of the Port of Los Angeles’ anti-pollution
initiative known as the Clean Trucks Program.
The program, which was established in 2008, includes a set
of criteria under which drayage trucks and their drivers can enter the port.
Included in the criteria is a stipulation that drivers must be employees of the
companies they haul goods for, not independent operators, which until that
point, the vast majority of truckers were.
The ATA is challenging numerous aspects of the regulations,
including the employee mandate. The case has been making its way through the
legal system since not long after the program was announced.
In September 2011, a three-member Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals panel ruled that the port couldn't require thousands of port-servicing
independent truckers to become trucking firm employees. However, the appellate
panel split 2-1 in favor of the port on four separate truck plan issues opposed
by the ATA, including an off-street parking provision, financial capability
requirement, maintenance provision and placard requirement.
The ATA took the case to the Supreme Court for review in
October 2011. In their Jan. 11 decision, the justices said they would hear the
case this spring and likely issue a decision by July.
“The port’s rules challenged by ATA, which range from a
requirement that carriers display port-mandated information on the sides of
trucks entering and leaving the port, to a requirement that trucks conform to
the port’s off-street parking rules even when not on port property, have
nothing to do with improving air quality,” ATA President and CEO Bill Graves said.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court will review the erroneous decision of the
appellate court.”
The ATA has denied contentions that it’s case, American
Trucking Assn. vs. the City of Los Angeles, is being pursued because it opposes
the environmental aspects of the Clean Trucks Plan.
“ATA has challenged these provisions because we believe they
are incompatible with Congress’ command that state and local governments may
not regulate motor carrier decisions relating to prices, routes and services,”
Graves said. “Our objections to the Port's program have always been
business-related, and not, as certain reactionary groups have asserted, out of
a desire to cling to polluting ways.”
The Port of Long Beach, which was also a defendant in the
original lawsuit, reached a court-approved settlement with the ATA in 2009
allowing the port to implement all environmental aspects of the truck plan, as
well as most of the non-environmental aspects. The Long Beach version of the
truck plan never called for an employee-only mandate.
