United States Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America

• Decision Date: 27 June 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-289,85-289
• Citation: 106 S.Ct. 2705,91 L.Ed.2d 494,477 U.S. 597
• Parties: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Petitioners v. PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

477 U.S. 597

106 S.Ct. 2705

91 L.Ed.2d 494

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Petitioners

v PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA et al.

No. 85-289.

Argued March 26, 1986.

Decided June 27, 1986.

Syllabus

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against handicapped persons in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." The United States provides financial assistance to airport operators through grants from a Trust Fund under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 and its successor statute, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Trust Fund Acts). The Government also operates a nationwide air traffic control system. Respondent organizations representing handicapped individuals brought an action in the Court of Appeals challenging, inter alia, the conclusion of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) that its regulatory authority under § 504 was limited to those few airlines that receive subsidies under the Federal Aviation Act. The Court of Appeals held that § 504 gave CAB jurisdiction over all air carriers by virtue of the extensive program of federal financial assistance to airports under the Trust Fund Acts, and that the air traffic control system was an additional source of financial assistance to airlines. The court then vacated the regulations to the extent that their application was limited to carriers receiving funds under the Federal Aviation Act, and instructed the Department of Transportation, CAB's successor, to issue new regulations that would apply to all commercial airlines.

Held: Section 504 is not applicable to commercial airlines. Pp. 603-612.

(a) Section 504's scope is limited to those who actually "receive" federal financial assistance. Congress sought to impose § 504 coverage as a condition or obligation tied to the recipient's agreement to accept the federal funds. By so limiting coverage to recipients, Congress imposed § 504's obligations upon those who are in a position to accept or reject those obligations as part of the decision whether or not to "receive" federal funds. In this case, the only parties in that position are the airport operators who are the recipients of federal funds under the Trust Fund Acts. Pp. 603-606.

(b) To assert that the economic benefit to airlines from the aid to airports is a form of federal financial assistance ignores the distinction that Congress made in § 504 that the statute covers only those who receive the aid and does not extend to those who benefit from it. Pp. 606-607.

(c) To tie § 504's scope to economic benefit derived from the Trust Fund expenditures in question here would give § 504 almost limitless coverage. Congress recognized a need to improve airports in order to benefit a wide variety of persons and entities, all of them classified together as beneficiaries, and did not set up a system whereby passengers are the primary or direct beneficiaries and all others, including airlines, benefited by the Trust Fund Acts are indirect recipients of the financial assistance to airports. Pp. 608-610.

(d) The Court of Appeals' attempt to fuse airports and airlines into a single program or activity for purposes of § 504 is unavailing. Regulatory coverage tied to the scope of the intended beneficiaries of the Trust Fund Acts is inconsistent with congressional intent in passing § 504. Pp. 610-611.

(e) Since the air traffic control system is "owned and operated" by the United States, it is not "Federal financial assistance" within the meaning of § 504. Rather, it is a federally conducted program that has many beneficiaries but no recipients. Pp. 611-612.

243 U.S.App.D.C. 237, 752 F.2d 694 (D.C.1985) reversed and remanded.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 613.

Sol. Gen. Charles Fried, for petitioners.

Douglas L. Parker, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against handicapped persons in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The United States provides financial assistance to airport operators through grants from a Trust Fund created by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970. The Government also operates a nationwide air traffic control system. This case presents the question whether, by virtue of such federal assistance, § 504 is applicable to commercial airlines.¹

I

Respondents successfully challenged regulations promulgated by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to implement § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 390, as amended; 29 U.S.C. § 790 et seq. (1982 Ed. and Supp. II). To understand respondents' arguments, it is necessary to review the process by which the regulations were promulgated.

A. The Rulemaking Process

Section 504 provides:

"No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 794.

The statute did not specifically provide for administrative implementation. In 1976, however, the President issued Executive Order No. 11914, 3 CFR 117 (1976-1980), calling on the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare ² to coordinate rulemaking under § 504 by all federal agencies. At that time two federal agencies were principally concerned with aviation: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is primarily concerned with the Air Traffic Control System and the safety of airline operations, including airports, and CAB, which was primarily concerned with economic regulation of the airline industry.³ Because § 504 had been modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., ⁴ both FAA and CAB patterned their proposed rules after the regulations issued to implement Title VI.

CAB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 6, 1979.⁵ CAB concluded that its authority under § 504 was limited to those few airlines that receive a subsidy under § 406(b) or § 419 of the Federal Aviation Act.⁶ CAB an- nounced its intention, however, to go beyond its § 504 jurisdiction in order to regulate the activities of all commercial airlines. CAB relied on its authority under § 404 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C.App. § 1374.

Section 404 contains two provisions relevant here: § 404(a)(1), requiring all air carriers to "provide safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities," and § 404(b), prohibiting carriers from "subjecting any particular person . . . to any unjust discrimination or any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever." CAB explained that "the proposed rules would emphasize that the handicapped are protected by the adequacy of service and antidiscrimination provisions of Section 404 . . . which are applicable to all air carriers, whether or not receiving Federal financial assistance." 44 Fed.Reg. 32401-32402 (1979). Somewhat inexplicably, CAB relied on both provisions of § 404 taken together to support its regulatory authority over the on-board activities of air carriers, even though it was aware that, under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,⁷ the antidiscrimination provision of § 404(b) would lapse as of Janu- ary 1, 1983, and only § 404(a)(1), requiring "safe and adequate service," would remain in effect.

CAB received public comment on the proposed regulations. Several airlines and the Air Transport Association challenged CAB's regulatory jurisdiction over the airlines. In the interim, Executive Order No. 12250, 3 CFR 298 (1981), transferred responsibility for coordinating the administration of various civil rights statutes, including § 504, from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Attorney General. After public comment and consultation with the Attorney General, CAB issued final regulations. 14 CFR pt. 382 (1986), 47 Fed.Reg. 25948 et seq. (1982).

The regulations have three subparts. Subpart A prohibits discrimination in air transportation against qualified handicapped persons. Subpart B contains specific, detailed requirements that must be followed by all air carriers in providing service to the handicapped. Subpart C sets forth compliance and enforcement mechanisms. As to all three subparts, CAB adhered to its original position that § 504 supported regulatory jurisdiction only over those carriers that receive funds under § 406 or § 419. CAB concluded, however, that the surviving portion of § 404—the "safe and adequate service" clause of § 404(a)(1)—did not support imposition of the specific provisions of subparts B and C on nonsubsidized carriers. Thus, those subparts would apply only to the extent authorized by § 504, that is, to carriers receiving subsidies under § 406 or § 419. CAB concluded, however, that it had authority to extend the reach of subpart A to all air carriers by virtue of § 404(a)(1)'s "safe and adequate service" clause. The Attorney General approved these regulations.

B. The Court of Appeals Decision

Respondents Paralyzed Veterans of America and two other organizations representing handicapped individuals (collectively PVA) ⁸ brought this action in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. PVA challenged the substance of some of the regulations, as well as CAB's conclusion regarding its rulemaking authority under § 504. Only the latter claim is before us. On that issue, PVA contended that CAB's interpretation of the scope of its rulemaking authority under § 504 was inconsistent with congressional intent and controlling legal precedent.

The Court of Appeals agreed with PVA's position. Paralyzed Veterans of America v. CAB, 243...