Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. S V. U.S. Dep't of Transp.
| Decision Date | 19 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | 11–1251.,Nos. 11–1444,s. 11–1444 |
| Citation | 714 F.3d 580 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, et al., Petitioners v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents. Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Assn., Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Background: Groups representing American truck drivers petitioned for review, challenging lawfulness of pilot program authorized by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, pursuant to which Mexico-domiciled trucking companies could operate trucks throughout United States so long as they complied with federal safety standards.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) groups had standing;
(2) pilot program did not violate federal law by allowing Mexico-domiciled truckers to use their Mexican commercial drivers' licenses;
(3) pilot program was designed to achieve level of safety that was equivalent to, or greater than, level of safety that would otherwise be achieved through compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations, as required by statute;
(4) trucks in pilot program were not subject to statutory decal requirement;
(5) agency acted reasonably in crediting trucking companies with time spent in previous pilot program toward 18 months required under new program to obtain permanent operating authority;
(6) agency met its obligation to include sufficient number of participants in pilot program so as to yield valid results; and
(7) any technical error that occurred due to timing of agency's release of environmental assessment for pilot program was harmless.
Petitions for review denied.On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Barbara J. Chisholm argued the cause for petitioners International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. With her on the briefs were Stephen P. Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass, Diana S. Reddy, and Scott L. Nelson.
Paul D. Cullen, Sr. argued the cause for petitioner Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Assn., Inc. With him on the briefs were Joyce E. Mayers and Paul D. Cullen, Jr.
Michael P. Abate, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney, David C. Shilton, John L. Smeltzer, and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Peter J. Plocki, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
Randolph D. Moss and Brian M. Boynton were on the brief for amicus curiae California Agricultural Issues Forum in support of respondents. Seth T. Waxman entered an appearance.
Stephan E. Becker and Daron T. Carreiro were on the brief for amicus curiae The United Mexican States in support of respondents.
Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.
Pursuant to statute, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently authorized a pilot program that allows Mexico-domiciled trucking companies to operate trucks throughout the United States, so long as the trucking companies comply with certain federal safety standards. Two groups representing American truck drivers, the Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Association and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, contend that the pilot program is unlawful. We disagree and deny their petitions for review.
Before 1982, trucking companies from Canada and Mexico could apply for a permit to operate in the United States. In 1982, concerned that Canada and Mexico were not granting reciprocal access to American trucking companies, Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law that prohibited the U.S. Government from processing permits for companies domiciled in those two countries. The trucking dispute between the United States and Mexico has lingered since then.
The United States and Mexico attempted to resolve the impasse when negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. Government announced a program that would gradually allow Mexico-domiciled trucking companies to operate throughout the United States. Soon thereafter, however, the U.S. Government announced that Mexico-domiciled trucking companies would be limited to specified commercial zones in southern border states.
Mexico then complained to a NAFTA arbitration panel about that limited access. The panel ruled that the United States had to allow Mexico-domiciled trucking companies to operate throughout the United States. But the panel also explained that the United States could require those companies to comply with the same regulations that apply to American trucking companies. The panel also ruled that if the United States failed to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to operate throughout the United States, Mexico would be permitted to impose retaliatory tariffs.
In response, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a law that authorized the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, to grant permits to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies so long as the trucking companies complied with U.S. safety requirements. SeePub. L. No. 107–87, § 350, 115 Stat. 833, 864 (2001). As the U.S. Government worked to establish a permitting regime, Congress passed and President Bush signed another law requiring the Department of Transportation to implement a pilot program to ensure that Mexico-domiciled trucks would not make the roads more dangerous. See U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110–28, § 6901, 121 Stat. 112, 183 (2007).
In 2007, the FMCSA instituted a pilot program, but Congress passed and President Obama signed a law that expressly defunded the program before it was completed. See Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–8, § 136, 123 Stat. 524, 932 (2009). After Mexico imposed $2.4 billion in retaliatory tariffs in response, Congress passed and President Obama signed a law reinstating funds for the program. See generally Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–117, 123 Stat. 3034 (2009). In 2011, the agency again instituted a pilot program, see 76 Fed. Reg. 40,420 (July 8, 2011), which the Drivers Association and the Teamsters now challenge on multiple legal grounds.
The initial question is whether the Drivers Association and the Teamsters have standing to challenge the pilot program. The Government argues that the groups lack Article III standing, prudential standing, and organizational standing. We disagree.
[1][2][3][4] To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff or petitioner must demonstrate that it has suffered injury in fact; that its injuries are fairly traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct; and that a favorable ruling would redress its injuries. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Here, both the Drivers Association and the Teamsters have suffered an injury in fact under the doctrine of competitor standing. The competitor standing doctrine recognizes that “economic actors suffer an injury in fact when agencies lift regulatory restrictions on their competitors or otherwise allow increased competition against them.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69, 72 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). Because the pilot program allows Mexico-domiciled trucks to compete with members of both these groups, the Drivers Association and the Teamsters have suffered an injury in fact. The causation and redressability requirements of Article III standing are easily satisfied because, absent the pilot program, members of these groups would not be subject to increased competition from Mexico-domiciled trucks operating throughout the United States.
[5][6] The Drivers Association and the Teamsters also meet the prudential standing “zone of interests” test. To establish prudential standing under the zone of interests test, the groups' asserted injuries “must be arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute[s]” that they allege were violated. Match–E–Be–Nash–She–Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2210, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012) (quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court recently emphasized, the prudential standing test “is not meant to be especially demanding.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). It “forecloses suit only when a plaintiff's interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
[7] In authorizing the pilot program, Congress balanced a variety of interests, including safety, American truckers' economic well-being, foreign trade, and foreign relations. These trucking groups are plainly within the zone of interests of the statutes governing the pilot program.
[8][9] Finally, the Drivers Association and the Teamsters both have organizational standing. An organization has standing to seek injunctive relief if at least one of its members would have standing and if the issue is germane to the organization's purpose. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 342–43, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Both groups satisfy these requirements: Their members are hurt by increased competition, and the groups exist to protect the economic interests of their members.
We therefore conclude that both groups have standing to challenge the pilot program.
On the merits, we first consider the Drivers Association's arguments.
The Drivers Association advances seven distinct...
To continue reading
Request your trial