法律英语：25 Federal Preemption

by Michael W. Flynn

 

First, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed 1 to practice in your jurisdiction 2. Further, I do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.   

 

Before I begin, I would like to ask you to please take the short listener survey by clicking on the green "5" to the right of the transcript 3. I try to tailor my topics to you, but unless I know who you are, I am not sure I am doing the best job I can. Thanks for your continued support, loyal listeners.

New York Passes a Passenger Bill of Rights

Today’s topic is federal preemption, as applied 5 in a recent court decision overturning a New York state law that gave airline passengers certain rights while suffering lengthy 6 delays. In the winter of 2006-2007, passengers on certain flights spent over 10 hours sitting on runways waiting for their flights to take off. During this time, some passengers were not given food or water. In response, the New York state legislature passed a “Passenger Bill of Rights,” which provided in relevant part:

 

Whenever airline passengers have boarded an aircraft and are delayed more than three hours on the aircraft prior to takeoff, the carrier shall ensure that passengers are provided as needed with:

(a) electric generation service to provide temporary power for fresh air and lights;

(b) waste removal service in order to service the holding tanks for on-board restrooms; and

(c) adequate food and drinking water and other refreshments 7.

 

ATA Tries to Strike Down the Passenger Bill of Rights

At least nine other states have proposed similar legislation. The Air Transport Association of America, which is the principal trade and service organization of the United States airline industry, sued in federal court to strike down the law. The Association argued that federal law regulating the airline industry preempted 8 New York’s law.

What Happens When State Laws Conflict With Federal Laws?

 

To understand the argument, it is first necessary to explain preemption. Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution, or the Supremacy 9 Clause, provides that

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 10 Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby 11, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

This clause operates to preempt 4, or strike down, state laws that interfere 12 with or contradict federal laws. Preemption can be either express or implied. Express preemption arises when a federal statute 13 expressly directs that state law be ousted 14. Implied preemption arises when, in the absence of explicit 15 statutory language, Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy a field of law exclusively, or when state law actually conflicts with federal law.

A Federal Law Specific to Airlines

 

The court considering the New York Passenger Bill of Rights looked at one statute in particular, the Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978. That law was passed when the United States deregulated its airline industry to allow private businesses to operate airlines free of government price-fixing. The law provides that a state “may not enact 16 or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service.”

No More Passenger Bill of Rights

 

The court noted 17 that one purpose of the 1978 law was to prevent states from interfering 18 with the national deregulation efforts of the airline industry. Based on the Airline Deregulation Act, and the purpose behind it, the court struck down New York’s law because it required a service to passengers. Namely, New York’s law required the giving of refreshments to passengers. The court reasoned that the federal law was intended to prevent states from requiring varying services to passengers, and to ensure a uniform aviation industry. In the end, the court stated that, “Although the goals of the PBR are laudable and the circumstances motivating its enactment 19 deplorable, only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law.”

Vote With Your Dollars

 

This decision does not mean that an airline may not, on its own, give whatever services it wants to stranded 20 passengers. It just means that an individual state cannot force an airline to give any services. In the end, the best course of action is to vote with your dollar: only patronize airlines that give basic services to its stranded passengers, or write to your federal representatives to encourage them to enact such a law.

 

Thank you for listening to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful 21 Life. Be sure to check out all the excellent Quick and Dirty Tips podcasts at QuickAndDirtyTips.com,

You can send questions and comments to.........or call them in to the voicemail line at 206-202-4LAW. Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this podcast only.

 

Legal Lad's theme music is "No Good Layabout" by Kevin MacLeod.