Document: 485 U.S. 495 108 S.Ct. 1350 99 L.Ed.2d 582 PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al., Petitionersv.ISLA PETROLEUM CORPORATION al. No. 86-1406 Argued Feb. 29, 1988. Decided April 19, Syllabus In 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA), which required President to promulgate regulations governing allocation and pricing of petroleum products, expressly pre-empted state local regulation that conflicted with those regulations. Under EPAA, President's regulatory authority was terminate in 1975, but subsequent amendments (including an amendment by Energy Policy Conservation (EPCA) 1975) extended his until September 30, 1981, when it expired. 1986, Puerto Rico, had suspended its products EPAA passed, imposed excise tax on oil refiners, petitioner Rico Department Consumer Affairs issued requiring advance notice price increases be given Department's Secretary, prohibiting wholesalers from passing cost retailers, imposing maximum profit margins sales retailers. Respondent companies brought actions, were consolidated District Court, alleging unconstitutional pre-emption grounds. The court enjoined enforcement regulations, holding decision decontrol prices. Temporary Court Appeals affirmed. Held: are not pre-empted. test for federal law is same as under Supremacy Clause a State. There no merit respondents' contention evinced intent enter field regulation, EPCA never countermanded intent, merely changed nature federally regime one hands-on mandated free-market control. Although Constitution permits congressional creation such regime, assumed historic police powers States superseded statute unless clear manifest purpose Congress. Transcontinental Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil Gas Bd. Miss., 474 409, 106 709, 88 732, does announce new rule burden-shifting whenever Federal Government terminates or reduces commerce, replacing normal need finding pre-empt find retransfer States. Since has withdrawn all substantial involvement there extant action can create inference unregulated segment otherwise regulated field, pre-emption, if intended, must explicitly stated. Pp. 499-504. 811 F.2d 1511, reversed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion other Members joined, except O'CONNOR, who took part consideration case. Lynn R. Coleman, Washington, D.C., petitioners. John C. Harrison, amicus curiae, supporting petitioners, special leave Court. Mark L. Evans, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 this case we determine whether legislation providing controls over response crisis early 1970's, subsequently eliminating controls, pre-empts gasoline Commonwealth Rico. 2 * Pub.L. 93-159, 87 Stat. 627, 15 U.S.C. § 751 seq., reaction severe market disruptions caused embargo exports United central provision legislation, upon rest depended, 4, 753, products. also contained express provision, 6(b), 755(b), precluding conflict order 4.* As originally enacted, provided termination during year temporary extensions, then enacted (EPCA), 94-163, 89 871 (codified scattered Titles sections Code), amended provide gradual decontrol. obligations 40 months, thereafter granted him discretionary 1981; date, prescribed "[t]he amend any issue [the EPAA] shall expire." 461, 955, 760g. 3 Before enactment prices sold Commonwealth. (referred litigation DACO, apparently acronym Spanish title, Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor) charged regulating these commodities, 1973. anticipating expiration DACO restore authority, after modified make effective only lifted. Then spring 1986 (41/2 terminated), Legislature subject challenge here. Orders March 26, 23, May 20, (App. Pet. Cert. 42a-45a, App. 7-12, 21-29). Among requirements, Secretary days' increases, prohibited 4 Respondents, several companies, actions alleging, inter alia, DACO's orders grounds, requesting declaratory injunctive relief. enforcing grounds Congress' prices, petitioners appealed determination (TECA). (Petitioners challenged certain aspects Court's appeal First Circuit, stayed proceedings.) A divided panel TECA 1511 (1986). Because importance presented, petition certiorari. 484 814, 65, 98 29 (1987). II 5 unique status our system, see, e.g., Examining Board Flores Otero, 426 572, 596, 96 2264, 2278, 49 65 (1976), parties have assumed, agree, at here Clause, Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, See 48 734 (statutory laws generally "have force effect States"); Helfeld, How Much Statutes Are Applicable Rico?, 110 F.R.D. 452, 469 (1985) (Supremacy applies Rico). Cf. Board, supra, 597, S.Ct., 2279; Calero-Toledo Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 663, 675, 94 2080, 2087, 452 (1974). Our cases typically involve analysis scope pre-emptive underlying statutory provisions impose regulation. See, Louisiana Public Service Comm'n FCC, 476 355, 368-370, 1890, 1898-1899, 90 369 (1986); Shaw Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 85, 95-96, 103 2890, 2898-2900, 77 490 (1983); Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67, 69-70, 61 399, 405-406, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). While operative, typical question posed relatively little difficulty, since 6(b) "in conflict" order. Here, however, presented decidedly untypical claim exists despite, absence specifically announcing it, program might therefore thought imply pre-emption. Respondents' contention, nutshell, 6 We suggested elsewhere regime. Arkansas Electric Cooperative Comm'n, 461 375, 384, 1905, 1912, 76 (1983). But say created subtly. repeatedly stated, " ' "we start assumption Congress." Hillsborough County Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 707, 715, 105 2371, 714 (1985), quoting Jones Rath Packing 430 519, 525, 97 1305, 1309, 51 604 (1977), turn Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 91 1447 (1947). do clarity manifestness scheme respondents rely here, consists more than (1) detailed Presidential remain current version Code, whose has, statute, been decreed expire, (2) pre-empting expired authority. 7 last analysis, what nothing excerpts legislative history their view (though petitioners) evidence free frequently said requires ascertaining 369, meant signify vacuum, unrelated giving meaning text. text neither conflicts actual nor plausibly exclusivity—to expressions attach. Respondents attention statements may reflect general approval belief would result EPCA, even desire result. unenacted approvals, beliefs, desires laws. Without can, light statements, interpreted prescribing impossible law. 8 Today's conclusion plainly foreshadowed Tully Mobil 455 245, 102 1047, 71 120 (1982) (per curiam ). case, held barring purchasers State's gross-receipts tax. Since, time decided appeal, EPCA-imposed date already vacated judgment, agreeing TECA's own 'will signal end concern area.' Id., 246, 1049, 653 497, 502 (1981). based theory more. U.S., 247, n. 2. 9 Instead following Tully, relied language 732 (1986), modification doctrine. Transcontinental, returned previously considered Northern Natural Co. Corporation Kansas, 372 84, 83 646, 601 (1963): pipeline company purchase gas ratably owners common interests source legislation. affirmative answer construction (NGA), 717 seq. 1978 (NGPA), 3301 "altered characteristics basis pre-emption." 417, 714. strongest alteration NGPA's withdrawal type purchases jurisdiction Regulatory Commission (FERC). concluded, NGA recognized equalled NGPA, because NGPA did alter comprehensive scheme, id., 420-421, 715-716, eliminate interest consumer protection, 423-424, 717-718. 10 At point opinion, phrased "whether Congress, revising give forces significant role determining supply, demand, natural gas, intended power denied FERC." 422, 717. below, enunciation test, proceeded search intention assume price-regulating abandoning. Finding none, further expression sentiments favoring market, concluded This mistook intent. To contrary, "clear purpose" always required. demanded could refuted revised, nonetheless "comprehensive," scheme. 11 draw exaggerated inferences another statement '[a] forgo area authoritative best left un regulated, event much regulate.' 716, 1912. That obviously unqualified sense; otherwise, deliberate inaction cannot be. vacuo, without constitutional assert it. Where intentionally leaves portion drawn—not alone, joined action. 12 being adopt imaginative analogy set forth Solicitor General's brief, repeal behind grin cat. 13 For reasons judgment 14 Reversed. O'CONNOR Specifically, codified, read follows: "The [§ 4] title thereunder preempt crude oil, residual fuel refined product established government order." argument excluded connection program. made reinforce reach. assume, purposes conflicting complete.

Category: 9