Port Action Could Harm Truckers, Says Court

The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals unanimously held that the California lower court erred when it denied a request by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) seeking a preliminary injunction to block the adoption of concession programs contained in the Clean Truck Program at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

In the earlier decision, US District Court Judge Christina Snyder cited security in her support of the concession requirements contained in the plan. Ostensibly a clean air initiative, the plan called for drivers picking up and delivering loads to the ports being employees of companies that are granted concession rights at the ports. This has sparked concerns that the largely independent pool of drivers would be replaced by unionized, company drivers.

The Appeals Court said the safety regulations the lower court had equated to security in order to justify an exception to federal law were not valid. The security exception would allow such local regulations and was used by the lower court to justify denying the ATA-requested injunction.

The American Trucking Associations, supported by the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, previously argued that the concession programs “unlawfully re-regulate the port trucking industry to the detriment of motor carriers, shippers, businesses and consumers that depend on the products that are handled at those ports.”

At the time it filed the brief, ATA President and CEO Bill Graves said, referring to bills passed into law to deregulate the motor carrier industry, “The Port of Los Angeles’ further intrusion into the competitive structure of the drayage market makes the ATA lawsuit even more important and illustrates precisely the type of disruption of trucking services in the economy that Congress found so inefficient and disruptive. Creating an artificial, non-competitive market with highly inflated costs and prices hinders our national competitive ability and sets a dangerous precedent.”

The Appeals Court ruling, issued March 20th, outlined key areas the lower court should have taken into consideration in granting the trucking group's motion, said the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL). Among those issues was an argument set forth in an amicus curiae brief filed by NITL opposing the concession agreements because they would unlawfully regulate “prices, routes and services” of trucking companies and substantially interfere with international maritime commerce. That language parallels restrictions in deregulation legislation and supported by a US Supreme Court ruling in Rowe vs. the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association which said, in that case, public health was not sufficient grounds to allow an exemption to the federal laws that prohibit states from regulating prices, routes and services of motor carriers.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in reversing the lower court decision, instructed that court to issue an appropriate preliminary injunction and to proceed as quickly as possible so the ATA will not suffer unnecessary harm from any unintentional provisions.

The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, was quick to issue a statement expressing “outrage at the nation's largest trucking lobby's repeated efforts to kill a pair of critical clean air programs….” The coalition, which claims 40 public health, environmental, community, labor and faith-based organizations, vowed to use every legal and political option to prevent the efforts of the ATA.