preemption

Altria Group, Inc. v. Good

Issues

Can smokers sue for misrepresentations in cigarette advertising under state law, or does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act prohibit such state-law claims?

 

Stephanie Good and other smokers (“Good”) brought a class action suit against Altria Group (“Altria”) and its subsidiary, Philip Morris, for fraudulent misrepresentation under Maine state law. Good and the other plaintiffs claim that the use of descriptors such as “light” and “lower in tar and nicotine” in cigarette advertisements are misrepresentations because Federal Trade Commission mandated testing does not reflect the actual tar and nicotine delivery of “light” cigarettes. Altria argues that state law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation against cigarette companies are preempted by federal law. The First Circuit rejected Altria’s argument, and the Supreme Court will review that decision. Given the diversity of state laws and the widespread use of “light” descriptors, the outcome of this case could expose tobacco companies to different levels of liability based on the content of their advertising. This case may affect other federally regulated industries, potentially subjecting them to state law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation on the ground that federally permissible advertising and testing is misleading under various state laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

To ensure that interstate commerce is "not impeded by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations," Congress has precluded the States from imposing any "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health . . . with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes," and has authorized the Federal Trade Commission to regulate "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the advertising of cigarettes." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334, 1336. Based on studies suggesting that cigarettes with comparatively lower tar and nicotine yields may present fewer health risks, the FTC requires tobacco companies to disclose those yields as measured using an FTC-mandated test, and has authorized tobacco companies to advertise cigarettes using "descriptors," such as "light," as shorthand references to the numerical test results. Respondents in this case contend that such descriptors are misleading, in violation of a state deceptive trade practices statute.

The question presented is whether state-law challenges to FTC-authorized statements regarding tar and nicotine yields in cigarette advertising are expressly or impliedly preempted by federal law.

Defendants Altria Group and Philip Morris (Altria’s subsidiary) manufactured and sold two brands of cigarettes, “Marlboro Lights” and “Cambridge Lights.” See Good v. Altria Group, Inc., 501 F.3d 29, 30 (1st Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

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

Starting in 2008, one of the busiest ports in the United States, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), entered into “concession agreements” with motor carriers doing business at the port. POLA enforced the agreements through a system of tariffs levied against noncompliant carriers and remedial provisions that empowered it to revoke noncompliant carriers’ access to the port. The American Trucking Association (ATA) sued POLA, arguing that the agreements were barred under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. The Central District of California and Ninth Circuit found that multiple provisions of the concession agreements were exempted from the FAAAA’s preemption clause under the market-participant doctrine and held that Castle did not bar suspension of carriers’ port access because of the FAAAA’s express safety exemption. In resolving the questions presented, the Supreme Court will determine the scope of the market-participant exemption to FAAAA preemption and whether Castle bars POLA from enforcing its concession agreements through revocation or suspension of port access. The case directly affects local and state governments’ power to regulate and contract under the FAAAA and similar Congressional legislation and has broad regulatory implications for motor carriers and other regulated actors in interstate commerce.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Title 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), originally enacted as a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, provides that “a State [or] political subdivision . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property.” It contains an exception providing that the express preemption clause “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” Id. § 14501(c)(2)(A). The questions presented are:

  1. Whether an unexpressed “market participant” exception exists in Section 14501(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 permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers’ federal registration, in violation of Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954).

top

Issue

Does federal law prevent enforcement of certain aspects of motor carrier-related contracts used by the Port of Los Angeles?

top

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0

Arizona v. United States

Issues

Can Arizona engage in cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws and create state offenses for violations of federal immigration regulations?

 

In 2010, Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which creates state immigration offenses and expands local police officers’ immigration law enforcement authority. The United States sued Arizona in federal district court, arguing the state law was preempted by federal law, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the state law from taking effect. The district court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to four provisions of the Arizona law and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Petitioners, the State of Arizona and the Governor of Arizona, Janice K. Brewer, argue that federal law does not preempt its statute because Arizona’s statute merely creates a formal cooperative relationship between federal and state officers to implement federal laws. Respondent, the United States, asserts that implementation of the statute would infringe upon the Executive Branch’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and is therefore invalid.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070) to address the illegal immigration crisis in the State. The four provisions of S.B. 1070 enjoined by the courts below authorize and direct state law-enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and impose penalties under state law for non-compliance with federal immigration requirements.

The question presented is whether the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt these four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face.

The state of Arizona maintains that it faced rampant illegal immigration, which increased crime and harmed Arizona’s economy. See Brief for Petitioners, State of Arizona and Janice K.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Arizona’s Immigration Law (Dec. 12, 2011)

Adam Liptak, N.Y. Times: Court to Weigh Arizona Statute on Immigration (Dec. 12, 2011)

Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Supreme Court to Hear Arizona S.B. 1070 on Preemption Issue (Dec. 12, 2011)

Submit for publication
0

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Issues

Whether a California law that conditions the enforceability of arbitration agreements on the availability of class action dispute resolution is non-discriminatory under the Federal Arbitration Act and not subject to conflict preemption.

 

Vincent and Liza Concepcion ("the Concepcions") signed a two-year service contract with AT&T Mobility for wireless phone service and received free cell phones from AT&T as a part of their contract. AT&T charged the Concepcions a sales tax on their phones, and the Concepcions subsequently sued AT&T alleging that the company had fraudulently advertised the phones as free. The District Court for the Southern District of California consolidated the Concepcions' claim with a class action suit pending in the District Court on the same issue. The service contract that the Concepcions signed contained a clause requiring that they arbitrate disputes with AT&T directly, thus prohibiting the Concepcions from participating in class action suits. After AT&T moved to compel arbitration, the District Court denied AT&T's motion, and AT&T appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") expressly and impliedly preempted state law requiring the enforcement of the arbitration clause. The Ninth Circuit ruled against AT&T on the grounds that the arbitration provision represented an unconscionable exculpatory clause and could not be enforced. The United States Supreme Court will now determine whether the FAA preempts state law requiring the enforcement of the arbitration clause. This decision may affect consumers' ability to participate in class action suits and the extent to which they may arbitrate small claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts States from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures -- here, class-wide arbitration -- when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims.

In 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion ("the Concepcions") signed a two-year service contract with AT&T Mobility for wireless phone service. See Laster v. AT&T Mobility LCC, 584 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir.

Written by

Submit for publication
0

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

Issues

Does the federal “Superfund” Act prevent property owners from seeking restoration damages under state law?

Court below

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether private citizens can fashion their own cleanup remedies at federal “Superfund” sites. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as “Superfund,” allows the Environmental Protection Agency to create cleanup plans for polluted sites across the nation. Gregory Christian and other resident landowners (“Landowners”) near the Superfund site of Anaconda, Montana, sued the owner of the site, Atlantic Richfield, alleging that the company owed them damages to restore their properties to pre-pollution status. Atlantic Richfield argues that the Superfund Act preempts any party from seeking state-law restoration damages. The Landowners counter that the Superfund Act leaves room for additional damages beyond what the Environmental Protection Agency has already deemed appropriate. The Supreme Court’s decision will impact the certainty and finality of Superfund cleanups, private-property rights, and the balance of state and federal power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

(2) Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup.

(3) Whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the Anaconda Copper Mining Company smelted copper near the town of Anaconda, Montana. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Montana Second Judicial District Court at 517. Over time, smelting operations created large levels of pollutants—particularly, arsenic and lead—in the surrounding town.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Inc.

Issues

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provides a blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers from tort actions filed in state or federal court by injured victims seeking compensation for injuries allegedly arising from defectively designed vaccines.

 

After their daughter suffered severe health problems following a routine vaccination for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (“DTP”), Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz sued Wyeth, Inc., the manufacturer of the vaccine, alleging that Wyeth’s DTP vaccine was outmoded and inadequately designed. In response, Wyeth argued that Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“NCVIA”) exempted vaccine manufacturers from all design-defect claims, including the one asserted by the Bruesewitz family. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Wyeth and dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court must now determine whether to sustain the categorical preclusion of all design-defect claims advanced against vaccine manufacturers, or whether to expose vaccine manufacturers to potential design-based litigation. This decision will affect the right of vaccine victims to seek compensation for their injuries and the ability of vaccine manufacturers to avoid costly litigation that may drive them out of the vaccine market.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that, contrary to its plain text and the decisions of this Court and others, section 22(b)(1) preempts all vaccine design defect claims, whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable or not?

This case turns on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the word “unavoidable” as it is used in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“NCVIA”). See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 245 (3d Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting

Issues

Whether federal immigration law preempts Arizona’s statute that both sanctions employers who hire unauthorized workers by rescinding their business licenses, and mandates employer participation in E-Verify, a federal pilot program that verifies a prospective employee’s employment eligibility.

 

The state of Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007 (“LAWA”). The law authorizes the Arizona Attorney General and county attorneys to sue employers who knowingly or intentionally employed unauthorized workers such as illegal aliens as a means of combating illegal immigration. Congress, however, previously enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which imposes different sanctions on employers for hiring illegal immigrants. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, along with various business and civil rights organizations, claimed that federal law preempts LAWA, thus making it invalid. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce argued that LAWA fostered employment discrimination against “foreign-looking” individuals and unduly harmed businesses. However, those in support of LAWA claimed that the state has the authority under its “police powers” to enforce the statute and that it was not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will shed light on the extent to which a state may enforce its own laws in an area that is also covered by federal law. Additionally, the Court’s ruling will affect the ability of states to use certain measures to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers is invalid under a federal statute that expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized workers.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note.

3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the “comprehensive scheme” that Congress created to regulate the employment of workers. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

Congress first imposed sanctions for hiring unauthorized workers when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), which criminalized the knowing or intentional hiring or continued employment of “unauthorized aliens” in the United States. See Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Immigration Impact, Beth Werlin: Supreme Court to Hear Two Cases Affecting Immigrants, Including a Case Challenging a Recent Anti-Immigrant Law (Oct. 7, 2010)

· ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss: Supreme Court Docket Has a 9th Circuit ‘Flavor’ (Oct. 5, 2010)

· Fordham Law Review, Maria Marulanda: Preemption, Patchwork Immigration Laws, and the Potential for Brown Sundown Towns

· U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: E-Verify—History and Milestones

Submit for publication
0

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown

 

The California state legislature passed an act, AB 1889, which bars private employers receiving state funds from using the funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. AB 1889 also prohibits private employers who participate in state programs and who receive state funds from using those funds for the purpose of promoting or hindering union organization. The United States Chamber of Commerce claims that this statute is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). A finding for the Chamber of Commerce would protect employer free speech over attempts by states to define neutrality between management and labor. Conversely, a finding for California would provide unions potential safeguards in their struggle against employers seeking to stave off union organizing while furthering the overall policy of California of remaining neutral in the struggle between management and labor.

 
    Submit for publication
    0

    CTS Corp. v. Waldburger

    Issues

    Does § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act apply to state statutes of repose in addition to state statutes of limitations?

    In 2009, Respondent Peter Waldburger and other landowners discovered that their well water was contaminated with chemicals similar to the ones stored by CTS Corporation when it owned the land 20 years earlier. About two years after this discovery, Waldburger and the other landowners brought a nuisance action, subject to North Carolina law, against CTS. North Carolina requires that suits involving real property be brought within three years of the injury becoming discoverable (a statute of limitation) and within ten years of the defendant’s last act (a statute of repose). In attempting to prevent dismissal of this case, Waldburger argues that this latter ten year requirement is preempted by § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). CTS argues that § 9658 does not apply to statutes of repose, only to statutes of limitations. The Supreme Court now has to consider whether § 9658 applies to statutes of repose. Resolution of this case will have far-reaching consequences, affecting both potential defendants, including industrial companies and the United States government, and potential victims of contamination and hazardous waste—which could include anyone who does not know that they are suffering injury from undiscovered hazardous waste.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    For certain state-law tort actions involving environmental harms, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) preempts the state statute of limitations’ commencement date and replaces it with a delayed commencement date provided by federal law. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 9658 provides that if “the applicable limitations period for such an action (as specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law) provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date, such period shall commence at the federally required commencement date in lieu of the date specified in such State statute.” Id. § 9658(a)(1). Section 9658, in turn, defines “applicable limitations period”-i.e., the state laws to which § 9658 applies-to “mean[] the period specified in a statute of limitations during which a civil action referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section may be brought.” Id § 9658(b)(2).

    In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit deepened a split in the state and federal appellate courts by interpreting § 9658 to preempt not just state statutes of limitations but also state statutes of repose. A statute of limitations extinguishes a claimant’s right to pursue a cause of action after a certain period of time following accrual, whereas a statute of repose abolishes a cause of action as to a particular defendant after a period of time, regardless of whether the claim has accrued.

    The question presented is: Did the Fourth Circuit correctly interpret 42 U.S.C. § 9658 to apply to state statutes of repose in addition to state statutes of limitations?

    top

    Facts

    From 1959 to 1985, Petitioner CTS Corporation (“CTS”) operated a fifty-four acre facility in Asheville, North Carolina, where notable quantities of chemicals were stored. Waldburger v. CTS Corp. 723 F.3d 434, 440 (4th Cir. 2013). In 1987, CTS sold this property to Mills Gap Road Associates after promising realtors that the land was clean.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Additional Resources

    top

    Submit for publication
    0

    Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, L.L.C.

    Issues

    Whether the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's regulation 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000, which interprets 12 U.S.C. §484(a) of the National Bank Act to preempt state enforcement of state laws against national banks even when the state laws are not substantively preempted, is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and/or whether the regulation is invalid because of the construction of the National Bank Act, as announced in First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640 (1924).

     

    Suspecting racially discriminatory lending practices, the Attorney General of New York State sent letters of inquiry to numerous national banks requesting information about their lending practices and warning them of the potential illegality of their acts. The Office of the Controller of the Currency ("OCC") and the Clearing House Association L.C.C., which consists of several national banks, maintained that the National Bank Act's "visitorial powers" provisions, interpreted by the OCC in 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000, bar states from enforcing state laws against national banks. The Attorney General argues that the OCC's interpretation of § 7.4000 violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and that the National Bank Act's "visitorial powers" provisions do not interfere with state enforcement of their generally applicable laws. The decision in this case may affect lending practices and the balance of power between the federal government and state governments.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    12 U.S.C. § 484(a), a provision of the National Bank Act, prohibits the exercise of "visitorial powers" as to national banks, except where those powers are authorized by federal law, vested in the courts of justice, or exercised by Congress or a House or committee thereof. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued a regulation (12 C.F.R. § 7.4000) interpreting § 484(a) to preempt state enforcement of state laws against national banks, even when the state laws are not substantively preempted.

    The questions presented are:

    1. Whether 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000 is entitled to judicial deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

    2. Whether 12 C.F.R. § 7.4000 is invalid because it is inconsistent with the authoritative construction of the National Bank Act by this Court in First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640 (1924).

    In 2005, Eliot Spitzer, in his official capacity as the New York State Attorney General, began investigating several national banks and their residential real estate lending practices for evidence of racial discrimination. See Clearing House Ass'n L.L.C. v.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Additional Resources

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to preemption