Back in 2007, after the Long Beach and Los Angeles port commissioners unveiled their Clean Truck Program, they stated repeatedly that the “finest legal minds in the nation” had reviewed the program. In a strongly worded opinion issued last Friday by a unanimous three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it appears the ports plan was so off-base even the best of attorney’s couldn’t save it.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the American Trucking Association (ATA) in an action they brought against the two ports for their attempts to regulate the trucking industry. The Court focused on the ports “concession agreements” and did not address the environmental components of the program – something never challenged by the American Trucking Association.
Events leading up to the Ninth Circuit decision highlighted some of the worst and most vicious qualities about California’s political process. Proponents of the truck program vilified the ATA for filing their lawsuit – calling the action “immoral.” Full page ads were taken out in local newspapers by a coalition of labor and environmental groups, attacking the Mayor of Long Beach for not including an “employee mandate” provision in the Long Beach plan. Readers were provided the phone number of the Mayor’s office, urging them to call and tell the Mayor to “Get Back on Track.” In light of the Ninth Circuit ruling, perhaps those folks will call back to apologize to the Mayor.
Tens of millions of dollars were spent on slick mailers, ads, staging rallies and the like and on multiple law firms to defend the program. Arguments in favor of the truck plan ranged from air quality to port security – an effort similar to slinging pasta against a wall to see what sticks, which the Court summarizes as a “…gallimaufry of individual covenants required of motor carriers…”
The Ninth Circuit has finally brought some adult supervision to the debate. And with regard to the supposed benefits of an employee mandate, the Court stated “We see little safety-related merit in those thread-paper arguments which denigrate small businesses and insist that individuals should work for large employers or not at all.”
With regard to several air quality initiatives, I have a colleague who likes to say that “If this were solely about clean air we would be having a far different debate.” In a bizarre display of damage control, proponents of the Clean Truck Program now praise the fact that the Court did not alter the environmental components of program. But that was not a purposeful act by the Court – the trucking industry never challenged the environmental goals of the program.