Seaplane Adventures, LLC v. County of Marin, California
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-06222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Seaplane Adventures v. County of Marin, Judge Alsup tentatively found the preemption claim likely fails and ordered briefing before deciding whether to dismiss it.
Seaplane Adventures, LLC and the County of Marin, California; the order required both sides to brief whether the preemption claim should be dismissed.
What happened
Seaplane Adventures, LLC sued the County of Marin, California, and asserted that federal aviation law preempted the County’s public-health order limiting recreational operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court had not received a summary-judgment motion on preemption.
Judge Alsup explained that the Federal Aviation Act has no express preemption provision, so Seaplane Adventures had to rely on implied preemption. He said the federal government had not occupied the field of public-health restrictions affecting aviation, and that complying with the County’s order was not impossible under federal law. He also said the order did not obstruct Congress’s objectives.
In the November 5, 2021, order, Judge Alsup directed the parties to show cause why the preemption claim should or should not be dismissed and requested briefing on any available remedy if federal preemption applied but the County prevailed on the equal-protection claim. The order did not finally dismiss the claim.
The detailed version
- Seaplane Adventures, LLC v. County of Marin, California · No. 3:20-cv-06222
- William Alsup
- Nov. 5, 2021
Background
Seaplane Adventures, LLC brought claims against the County of Marin, California. The order concerns Seaplane Adventures’ claim that federal law preempted the County’s health order limiting recreational aviation operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court stated that no party had moved for summary judgment on the preemption issue.
Court’s tentative analysis
The court stated that the Federal Aviation Act contains no express preemption clause. It therefore said that Seaplane Adventures’ theories had to rely on either implied field preemption or conflict preemption.
Field preemption applies when federal regulation is so detailed and comprehensive that it indicates state regulation in the same area would interfere with the federal regulatory system. The court identified the relevant field as aviation-industry restrictions during a public-health emergency. It said the Federal Aviation Administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the absence of new regulations addressing these restrictions, supported the conclusion that federal aviation law had not occupied that field. The court also noted that Congress had enacted no law displacing state and local authority to issue public-health orders or exempting aviation businesses from public-health officers’ authority.
Conflict preemption can apply when it is physically impossible to comply with both federal and state requirements or when state law obstructs Congress’s objectives. The court said the County’s prohibition on recreational flights did not make compliance with federal law impossible because Seaplane Adventures had no federal-law obligation to provide those flights. It also said the County’s order did not obstruct congressional objectives because Congress had not enacted a law displacing state and local health-order authority over recreational aviation businesses. The court cited federal legislation enacted during the pandemic that supported the aviation industry economically, but said it could identify no congressional objective that the County’s health order impeded.
The court rejected Seaplane Adventures’ argument that a 2017 Planning Commission preemption finding, and an alleged County admission concerning a public-health order, supported its position. The order called that argument a “dead-end argument.”
Order and present status
The court said it was tentatively of the view that the preemption claim must fail, but it did not enter a final dismissal. Instead, Judge William Alsup ordered all parties to explain, in briefs of no more than seven pages per side due by noon on November 10, 2021, why the preemption claim should or should not be dismissed. The court also asked the parties to address what remedy, if any, Seaplane Adventures could seek if federal law preempted application of the County’s health order but the equal-protection claim warranted summary judgment for the County. The order concluded, “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.