Opinion ID: 3170399
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Federal Aviation Act’s Saving Clause

Text: Before we consider whether the Federation’s claims are impliedly field preempted by the ACAA and its implementing regulations, we must first address the Federation’s assertion that implied field preemption is “not permitted” under the ACAA. Specifically, the Federation argues that its state-law claims cannot be impliedly field preempted under the ACAA because of the combined effect of the FAA’s saving clause and the express preemption clause of the ADA. According to the Federation, any state-law claims that fall outside the scope of the ADA express preemption provision are necessarily preserved by the FAA’s saving clause. That is not so. The saving clause provides that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c).10 The clause was enacted as part of the original Federal Aviation Act of 1958; it remained unchanged when Congress enacted the ADA in 1978 and the ACAA in 1986. Congress retained once more the saving clause when it reorganized the FAA in 1994. See Revision of Title 49, United States Code Annotated, “Transportation,” Pub. L. No. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (1994). The Federation maintains that if Congress had wanted to preempt state discrimination claims, it could have done so explicitly in the ADA express preemption provision, 10 As noted, the ACAA is contained within the same “part” of the FAA, which is Part A of Title 49, Subtitle VII. See 49 U.S.C. Subtit. VII, Part A. 22 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). Because Congress did not do so, the Federation’s argument goes, “the [FAA] savings clause springs into operation once it is determined that a claim is not expressly preempted . . . [and] preserves those claims from field preemption.” We are unpersuaded, for several reasons. First, by its terms, the FAA’s saving clause preserves only “other remedies provided by law,” 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c) (emphasis added), not claims brought under state statutes prescribing substantive standards of care. See Northwest, 134 S. Ct. at 1428 (describing § 40120(c) as “a saving provision preserving pre-existing statutory and common-law remedies”) (emphasis added); Morales, 504 U.S. at 385 (describing § 40120(c) as a “general ‘remedies’ saving clause”) (emphasis added); Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 747 F.3d 716, 723 n.7 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The FAA’s savings clause . . . establish[es] that state law remedies remain available . . . .”) (emphasis added); Gilstrap, 709 F.3d at 1005–06; see also US Airways, Inc. v. O’Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1326 (10th Cir. 2010). In this case, the Federation seeks relief under “prescriptive” state statutes that “control[] the primary conduct of those falling within [their] governance.” Wolens, 513 U.S. at 227. It does not, as in Gilstrap, seek to use a state-law remedy for a breach of a federally prescribed standard of behavior. See Gilstrap, 709 F.3d at 1007. The Federation relies on the statement in Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., a First Circuit case, that “when the [ADA] saving clause is juxtaposed with the [ADA express] preemption provision it ‘ought properly be read to carve out all common law or statutory claims not related to an airline’s prices, routes or services.’” 720 F.3d 60, 69 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Mitchell v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 137, NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 23 154 (D. Mass. 2012)). But Brown held, in relevant part, only that common-law claims could be preempted by the ADA’s express preemption provision, and that the plaintiffs’ claims were in fact preempted. Id. at 69; 71. Implied preemption was not at issue in Brown at all. Nor is there any reason to think that Brown’s statement that claims not falling within the express clause are carved out by the saving clause was intended to refer to implied preemption. Moreover, in general, the inclusion of either a saving clause or an express preemption clause within a statutory scheme does not foreclose the application of ordinary implied preemption principles. “[T]he existence of an ‘express pre-emption provisio[n] does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles’ or impose a ‘special burden’ that would make it more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling outside the clause.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504-05 (quoting Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869–72 (2000)). That the Federation’s claims are not expressly preempted under the ADA, therefore, does not “categorical[ly] . . . preclude” implied preemption under the ACAA. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 288 (1995). The presence of a saving clause does not necessarily limit the operation of ordinary implied preemption principles either. Geier is instructive in this regard. That case concerned preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (“Safety Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1381 (1988), repealed by Pub. L. No. 103-272, § 7(b), 108 Stat. 1379 (1994). 529 U.S. at 867. The Safety Act had a saving clause, which provided that “[c]ompliance with’ a federal safety standard ‘does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.” Id. at 868 (quoting 15 U.S.C. 24 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES § 1397(k) (1988)). Geier explained that neither the Safety Act’s saving clause nor its express preemption clause11 “foreclose[d] or limit[ed] the operation of ordinary preemption principles insofar as those principles instruct us to read statutes as pre-empting state laws . . . that ‘actually conflict’ with the statute or federal standards promulgated thereunder.” Id. at 869; see also Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 1131, 1136 (2011) (holding that a statute’s saving clause did not “foreclose or limit the operation of ordinary conflict preemption principles”). Geier emphasized that the Court “ha[d] repeatedly ‘decline[d] to give broad effect to saving clauses where doing so would upset the careful regulatory scheme established by federal law.’” Id. at 870 (quoting United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 106 (2000)). As Geier then went on to explain, the presence of both a saving clause and an express preemption clause in the Safety Act does not “create some kind of ‘special burden’ beyond that inherent in ordinary pre-emption principles.” Id. at 870. Although the saving and preemption clauses reflected 11 The Safety Act’s express preemption clause provided that Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment[,] any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1988), repealed by Pub. L. No. 103-272, § 7(b), 108 Stat. 1379 (1994). NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 25 seemingly conflicting congressional objectives, Geier declined to interpret the Safety Act’s saving clause as preserving all claims brought under state law that did not fall within the preemption provision’s scope, noting that “[t]o the extent that such an interpretation of the saving provision reads into a particular federal law toleration of a conflict that [ordinary conflict preemption] principles would otherwise forbid, it permits that law to defeat its own objectives.” Id. at 872. Permitting common-law actions that “actually conflict” with federal regulations “would take from those who would enforce a federal law the very ability to achieve the law’s congressionally mandated objectives that the Constitution, through the operation of ordinary pre-emption principles, seeks to protect.” Id. Geier concerned only the operation of ordinary implied conflict preemption principles. But the same logic applies to the operation of implied field preemption principles. Compare Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504-05 (relying on Geier) with id. at 2520 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that Geier was inapplicable because it applied conflict preemption principles, while the majority relied on field preemption). To interpret § 40120(c) as preserving any state-law claim not preempted under the ADA — including claims involving areas pervasively regulated by the DOT, such that Congressional intent to “occupy a field exclusively” would otherwise be inferred, Freightliner, 514 U.S. at 287 — would allow the FAA to “defeat its own objectives.” Geier, 529 U.S. at 872. The FAA expressly authorizes the DOT to promulgate “necessary” regulations to carry out the ACAA. 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101, 40113. In fact, it was the need for a “uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation” that led Congress to enact the FAA in the first place. See Montalvo, 508 F.3d at 471. Under the 26 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES Federation’s reading of § 40120(c), however, a passenger could sue an airline for violating any state standard of care not expressly preempted by the ADA, notwithstanding federal regulations covering in depth the particular field at issue. The result would be chaotic. A federal regulatory scheme designed to determine entirely the rights and obligations of affected parties as to particular issues could then coexist with another set of comprehensive regulations covering the same area, as long as there was no direct conflict between the two. Yet, comprehensive regulatory schemes often represent considered decisions to refrain from mandating certain actions or protections, while at the same time allowing those same actions or protections if undertaken voluntarily. There is little reason to think Congress, in retaining the FAA’s saving clause, intended to create “such a complex type of state/federal relationship” as would result if two sets of comprehensive schemes of this sort were allowed to coexist. Geier, 529 U.S. at 872. Absent any specific indication that Congress sought to preserve all state-law claims not expressly preempted under the ADA, we adopt the Geier approach and so apply ordinary implied field preemption principles to the Federation’s claims.