Industria Y Distribuction De Alimentos v. Trailer Bridge
797 F.3d 141
1st Cir.2015Background
- Three port operators pay fees to Puerto Rico for operations at the Port of San Juan.
- PRPA required scanning of inbound cargo and charged an Enhanced Security Fee (ESF) to defray scanning costs.
- Regulation 8067 mandated scanning; three operators had direct access to scanning facilities.
- PRPA and Treasury collected and allocated ESF revenue to S2 Services and security personnel.
- District court held scanning regulation constitutional; ESF as applied to non-scanning operators unconstitutional; ESF as applied to three scanning operators constitutional.
- Appellants (three operators with scanning access) appeal the ESF as applied to them under the dormant Commerce Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ESF is a valid user fee under Evansville factors. | Operators argue ESF is excessive and not proportional. | PRPA asserts ESF approximates use, benefits from scanning, and is not discriminatory. | ESF passes Evansville factors; approved. |
| Whether ESF is excessive relative to costs of the scanning program. | Operators claim costs exceed revenues allocated to scanning. | PRPA shows vast majority of ESF revenue funds scanning-related costs. | Not excessive; record insufficient to prove excess. |
| Whether ESF discriminates against interstate commerce. | Operators contend the fee burdens out-of-state users. | Fee is facially neutral and affects local and out-of-state users similarly. | Not a discriminatory regime; burden not clearly excessive in relation to local benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972) (three-factor test for user fees under dormant Commerce Clause)
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 510 U.S. 355 (1994) (fee must be proportional to use and not excessive)
- American Airlines v. MassPort, 560 F.2d 1037 (1st Cir. 1977) (service benefits irrelevant; fee may fund legitimate objectives)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (facially neutral regulation upheld unless burden on commerce is clearly excessive)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md., 437 U.S. 117 (1978) (neutrality of impact does not prove discrimination; evidence required)
- Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice, 339 U.S. 542 (1950) (rough approximation suffices for use-fee proportionality)