Specifically, the court was unanimous in striking down the
sections of the ports’ regulations requiring trucking firms to create plans for
off-street parking and to post placards on drayage trucks with a phone number
people could call to report safety or pollution concerns.
In its decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court
cites the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which states that the
enforcement of any state or local “law, regulation, or other provision having
the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor
carrier,” is prohibited.
The Court concluded that the overturned elements fell within
the scope of the FAAAA’s preemption provision.
The Clean Truck Program was devised by the port in 2007 in
response to the then-growing problem of air pollution caused by older,
pollution spewing drayage trucks hauling goods to and from Los Angeles and the
adjoining Port of Long Beach. The major components of the anti-pollution
program were left untouched by the Supreme Court, including a ban on older,
more polluting trucks from the port.
In 2008, the American Trucking Associations sued the City of
Los Angeles to try having elements of the program overturned. After the Supreme
Court’s 9-0 ruling, the ATA issued a statement hailing the decision.
“We are gratified that, at the conclusion of many years of
litigation, the highest court in the land unanimously agreed with ATA on these
rules,” ATA President and CEO Bill Graves said in the statement. “Our position
has always been that the port’s attempt to regulate drayage operators – in ways
that had nothing to do with its efforts to improve air quality at the port –
was inconsistent with Congress’ command that the trucking industry be shaped by
market forces, rather than an incompatible patchwork of state and local
regulations.”
The City of Los Angeles also issued a response to the
ruling, saying it was “reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision,” but intends to
continue its anti-pollution efforts “to the extent the law allows.”
The Supreme Court’s decision can be read in full at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-798_anbf.pdf.
