U.S. v. Locke, Gov. of WA, et al. / International Assn. of U.S. Independent Tanker (Intertanko) v. Locke (03/06/2000)

By: Noelle Straub, Medill News Service

Questions presented

(1) Do federal statutes, regulations, and international treaty commitments that prescribe comprehensive standards for such things as tank vessel operations expressly or impliedly preempt attempts by the state of Washington to enforce regulations that impose different standards and requirements governing the same subject matters? (2) May a state deny entry to, or penalize for noncompliance with state safety and environmental protection regulations, a vessel that has been found by the U.S. government to be eligible to enter the United States under multilateral treaty commitments, federal law, and federal regulations governing safety and environmental protection?

Brief

Witnessing the environmental devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, residents of the state of Washington feared such an accident could happen in the waters off their coastline. As a result, the state legislature enacted laws to protect its waters from pollution by oil tankers.

Not everyone was happy with the new rules, parts of which are stricter than corresponding national regulations. For example, the state set limits on the number of hours crew members may work, required deck officers to be proficient in English, and required tankers to undergo inspections 12 hours or less before entering state waters. The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, or Intertanko, decided that some federal laws, Coast Guard regulations, and international treaties should take precedence over the state laws.

Intertanko filed a federal lawsuit against the governor of Washington and various other state and local officials alleging that certain of the state regulations were unconstitutional.

The state asked the district court to summarily rule in its favor, and the district court agreed, upholding each challenged regulation. Intertanko then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three environmental organizations -- the Washington Environmental Council, the National Resources Defense Council, and Ocean Advocates -- soon lent their legal support to the state, while the federal government joined the suit on Intertankos side.

In its appeal, Intertanko argued that because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives federal laws priority over state laws, the state regulations are preempted by federal law. In its ruling, a unanimous appeals panel first considered the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Because the federal law contains the clause, ""Nothing in this Act...shall affect, or be construed or interpreted as preempting, the authority of any State,"" the appeals court ruled that the state law is not preempted.

The court also considered other federal laws, including the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, and the Tank Vessel Act of 1936. To determine whether these acts preempt the state laws, the court examined the three types of preemption set forth by the Supreme Court: conflict, field, and express preemption.

Conflict preemption exists when state law stands as an obstacle to the objectives of act of Congress. The court ruled that since the Oil Pollution Act, which does not preempt state law, is the most recent federal statute, it reflects the purposes of Congress better than the other laws, so there is no conflict preemption.

Field preemption exists when federal law covers a subject so well, there is no room left for state law. The court held that field preemption only applies to design elements of ships, not operational requirements. The court found that one state law, concerning emergency towing equipment, was preempted by federal law, but the others were not.

The court also ruled that state laws are not expressly preempted by Coast Guard regulations, as Intertanko argued, because Congress ""did not explicitly or impliedly delegate to the Coast Guard the authority to preempt state law.""

Finally, the court ruled the state laws neither violate Congress power to regulate commerce, nor the foreign affairs power of the federal government, because the rules do not overly burden interstate commerce or foreign countries.

On Nov. 24, 1998, the panel denied petitions for rehearing and declined the suggestion for an en banc hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Sept. 10, 1999 and consolidated the U.S. government's and Intertanko's cases for review.

On March 6, 2000, a unanimous Court reversed, holding for Intertanko and the U.S. that federal law preempts Washington's rules regarding tanker staffing and operation.

""Uniform national rules regarding general tanker design, operation and seaworthiness have been mandated"" by federal law, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court. ""The state of Washington has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of our republic,"" Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy's opinion noted that states can still regulate their own ports and waterways, so long as the rules are based on ""the peculiarities of local waters.""