Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
Cert. Denied
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that California’s M&RB laws are not preempted under the FAAAA, applying a preemption test that conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other circuits and has consistently produced flawed results?
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
May 04, 2015
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit ruling regarding FAAAA
February 09, 2015
In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a certiorari petition to clarify whether the FAAAA, which deregulated the motor carrier industry, preempts enforcement of California’s meal and rest break laws as applied to motor carriers. The Chamber's brief argued that the Ninth Circuit erred when it constructed a novel test limiting the scope of FAAAA preemption to laws that “bind” an air carrier to a particular price, route, or service. The Chamber explained that this cramped reading of the preemption provision is incompatible with the text and intent of the FAAAA and Supreme Court precedent interpreting the FAAAA, and is in tension with the approach applied by the First Circuit and other federal courts.
Paul DeCamp and Collin O'Connor Udell of Jackson Lewis P.C. represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.
Case Documents
- Cert. Petition -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- J.B. Hunt Transport Amicus Brief -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- American Trucking Assn. Amicus Brief -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Truck Renting & Leasing Assn. Amicus Brief -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Ryder Amicus Brief -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Respondents' Brief in Opposition -- Penske v. Dilts (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf