Court Opinion

ID: 9743962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:51:11.360537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:45.967184
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE MILLER, specially concurring: The majority concludes that section 1305(a)(1) of the Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. §1305(a)(l) (1988)) does not expressly preempt the plaintiffs’ State-law-based claims for damages. As the sole support for this holding, the majority opinion asserts that the Federal statute preempts only State laws that are specifically directed at the airline industry and does not affect laws of general application, like those at issue here. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion, I cannot subscribe to its rationale. Unlike the majority, I am not persuaded that Federal preemption exclusively turns on a determination of whether the State law at issue is general or specific in its focus and operation. Although State laws specifically addressing activity that is the subject of an express preemption provision will be preempted (see Mackey v. Lanier Collections Agency & Service, Inc. (1988), 486 U.S. 825, 829-30, 100 L. Ed. 2d 836, 843-44, 108 S. Ct. 2182, 2185), not every State law having general application is automatically saved from preemption. Indeed, one apparent and unsustainable consequence of the majority’s reasoning would be to shield from preemption all common law actions and remedies, which by their nature have general application. The general nature of a State law can be a circumstance arguing against preemption, but that characteristic alone will not be determinative. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon (1990), 498 U.S. 133,139, 112 L. Ed. 2d 474, 484, 111 S. Ct. 478, 483. One need not look far to find, in this or other contexts, Federal preemption of State or other local laws having general application. For example, statutes or common law remedies, even though not aimed directly or entirely at airlines, may not be used to control the seating of aircraft passengers. (See O’Carroll v. American Airlines, Inc. (5th Cir. 1989), 863 F.2d 11; Anderson v. USAir, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1987), 818 F.2d 49; Hingson v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (9th Cir. 1984), 743 F.2d 1408; Hastalis v. Human Rights Comm’n (1990), 205 Ill. App. 3d 50.) These cases surely demonstrate that not every law of general application will survive Federal preemption, and thus the majority’s proffered distinction between laws of general application and laws of specific application fails to provide a reliable guide for resolving preemption questions. If this distinction is useful at all, it is only because a law’s general application supplies a necessary, though not a sufficient, predicate for a finding of no preemption. Federal preemption of State laws may occur in three ways. First, State law may be expressly preempted, by an explicit Congressional statement to that effect. (Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1983), 463 U.S. 85, 95, 77 L. Ed. 2d 490, 500, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 2899.) Second, State law may be implicitly preempted, as when Congress has occupied a field so extensively that any State regulation would be inconsistent with the comprehensive Federal scheme. (Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. (1947), 331 U.S. 218, 230, 91 L. Ed. 1447, 1459, 67 S. Ct. 1146, 1152.) Third, State law will be preempted when it actually conflicts with Federal law. A conflict will be found when compliance with both Federal and State provisions is impossible (Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132, 142-43, 10 L. Ed. 2d 248, 257, 83 S. Ct. 1210, 1217), or when the State law stands as an obstacle to the full accomplishment of the Federal purpose (Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), 312 U.S. 52, 67, 85 L. Ed. 581, 587, 61 S. Ct. 399, 404). Determining whether State law is preempted by Federal law is solely a question of Congressional intent. (California Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Guerra (1987), 479 U.S. 272, 280, 93 L. Ed. 2d 613, 623, 107 S. Ct. 683, 689.) In this regard, we may consider the presumption against preemption in areas of law traditionally regulated by the States. (Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts (1985), 471 U.S. 724, 740, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728, 740-41, 105 S. Ct. 2380, 2389; Federal Express Corp. v. California Public Utilities Comm’n (9th Cir. 1991), 936 F.2d 1075, 1078; West v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1990), 923 F.2d 657, 659.) “But when Congress has ‘unmistakably ... ordained’ [citation] that its enactments alone are to regulate a part of commerce, state laws regulating that aspect of commerce must fall.” Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977), 430 U.S. 519, 525, 51 L. Ed. 2d 604, 614, 97 S. Ct. 1305, 1309. The Federal Aviation Act contains an express preemption provision, and the principal question before us is whether the challenged State laws and remedies at issue here fall within its scope. Section 1305(a)(1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part: “[N]o State or political subdivision thereof *** shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier ***.” (49 U.S.C. §1305(a)(l) (1988).) As construed by the courts, section 1305(a)(1) does not preempt every State-law-based claim affecting airlines and their operations. See Air Transport Association of America v. Public Utilities Comm’n (9th Cir. 1987), 833 F.2d 200, 207; see also Federal Express Corp. v. California Public Utilities Comm’n (9th Cir. 1991), 936 F.2d 1075, 1078 (“[D]espite the very broad and apparently all-inclusive language of [section 1305(a)(1)], common sense and common practice have forbidden that the statute be taken literally and have restricted its range”). The preemption provision was enacted as part of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95 — 504, 92 Stat. 1708 (1978)) and later codified as section 1305 of the Federal Aviation Act. In the Airline Deregulation Act, Congress significantly altered the dynamics of the airline industry by substantially reducing, though not completely eliminating, the Federal regulatory apparatus that had previously limited competition among air carriers. It seems clear, then, that a primary purpose of the preemption provision contained in the 1978 amendatory act was to prevent the States from attempting to re-regulate air carriers, by imposing their own potentially conflicting requirements, after Congress had deregulated the airline industry. (New England Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Port Authority (1st Cir. 1989), 883 F.2d 157, 173; Freeman, State Regulation of Airlines and the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 44 J. Air L. & Com. 747, 755-56 (1979).) This is not to suggest that the range of State activity preempted by section 1305(a)(1) is necessarily coextensive with the regulatory apparatus dismantled in 1978. But Congress, having decided to exit the business of regulating air carriers’ rates, routes, and services, surely wanted to forbid the States to attempt to fill that regulatory vacuum, and I would construe the preemption provision in that light. If the principal objective of section 1305(a)(1) is to bar State economic regulation of air carriers (Federal Express Corp. v. California Public Utilities Comm’n (9th Cir. 1991), 936 F.2d 1075, 1078-79), then it must be concluded that the claims raised here fall outside the intended reach of that provision. The plaintiffs allege breach of contract and violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 121½, pars. 261 through 272). By their complaints, the plaintiffs seek to enforce certain State-law-based statutory and common law rights. These claims are not regulatory in force or effect. They do not establish the rates airlines must charge, or determine the routes airlines must fly, or dictate the services airlines must provide. The plaintiffs’ claims do not threaten the defendant airline with economic regulation, which Congress intended to prevent the States from imposing on a deregulated airline industry. The plaintiffs seek only to enforce their statutory and common law. remedies for the defendant airline’s alleged breach of its self-imposed obligations. For these reasons, I would conclude that the plaintiffs’ damage claims are not expressly preempted by section 1305(a)(1) of the Federal Aviation Act. One further consideration that counsels against an overly expansive reading of the preemption provision is found in the savings clause of section 1506 of the Federal Aviation Act. Section 1506 provides: “Nothing in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.” (49 U.S.C. §1506 (1988).) The savings clause was part of the Federal Aviation Act prior to 1978, and the clause was retained by Congress notwithstanding the adoption of the preemption provision contained in the Airline Deregulation Act. As the majority opinion correctly concludes, the savings clause preserves, against implied preemption, State-law claims that are not specifically preempted by section 1305(a)(1). (Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox (5th Cir. 1990), 897 F.2d 773, 783, appeal after remand (1991), 949 F.2d 141, cert. granted (1991), 498 U.S. 926, 116 L. Ed. 2d 601, 112 S. Ct. 632; Illinois Corporate Travel, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. (7th Cir. 1989), 889 F.2d 751, 754.) By retaining the savings clause at the same time it added the preemption provision, Congress apparently believed that some statutory and common law remedies (see, e.g., Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (1976), 426 U.S. 290, 48 L. Ed. 2d 643, 96 S. Ct. 1978; Brunswasser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (W.D. Pa. 1982), 541 F. Supp. 1338) would in fact survive the enactment of section 1305(a)(1). As a final matter, I question the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief are preempted even though their claims for money damages are not. The majority applies the same distinction adopted by the appellate court in the present case (207 Ill. App. 3d 35, 39). It is not clear, however, that the two forms of relief are so readily distinguishable for preemption purposes. (See International Paper Co. v. Ouellette (1987), 479 U.S. 481, 498 n.19, 93 L. Ed. 2d 883, 901 n.19, 107 S. Ct. 805, 815 n.19.) In any event, in the absence of a finding that the plaintiffs properly allege claims for which injunctive relief may be awarded, I believe it is premature to attempt to determine in this interlocutory appeal whether that form of relief would be preempted by Federal law. The question whether the plaintiffs may obtain injunctive relief under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act has not been raised in this court and thus is not before us. If, as the appellate court concluded, private actions for injunctive relief are not available under the Act (207 Ill. App. 3d at 39), we would have no occasion to consider in this case the preemptive effect of section 1305(a)(1) on that portion of the plaintiffs’ action. For .the reasons stated, I concur in the court’s judgment.