Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
666 F.3d 862
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Pennsylvania Steel Act requires domestic steel for public works; Mabey Bridge supplied temporary bridges made from UK steel; PennDOT interpreted the Steel Act to prohibit foreign steel in public works; Mabey sued claiming Buy America Act preemption and constitutional violations; court reviews preemption de novo and constitutional challenges; district court granted summary judgment for Secretary, which Mabey appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption under Buy America Act | Mabey argues Buy America preempts Steel Act, including temporary items. | Mabey cannot show clear preemption; federal scheme permits more stringent state rules. | Steel Act not preempted; states may impose stricter domestic steel requirements. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause | Steel Act burdens foreign commerce; discriminates against Mabey. | Congress authorized state restrictions; Trojan controls; market-participant doctrine applies. | Act survives Commerce Clause with congressional authorization and market-participant rationale. |
| Contract Clause | PennDOT’s reinterpretation of the Steel Act impaired Mabey’s contracts. | Interpretation was not a new legislative rule; not a prerequisite contract impairment. | No Contract Clause violation; actions were interpretive, not legislative. |
| Equal Protection | Distinction between temporary bridges and other items lacks rational basis. | Line-drawing reasonable; rational basis standard applies. | No Equal Protection violation; rational basis upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trojan Techs., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 916 F.2d 903 (3d Cir. 1990) (Commerce Clause and market-participant analysis in steel Act case)
- Wardair Can. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 477 U.S. 1 (1986) (foreign commerce and federal uniformity concerns in regulation)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985) (equal protection with state discrimination considerations (limited by facts))
- Ross v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150 (1905) (Contract Clause applies to legislative power; distinguishes legislative vs. executive actions)
- Fleming v. Fleming, 264 U.S. 29 (1924) (no Contract Clause violation from new interpretation of antecedent statute)
- Deweese v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 590 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2010) (analyze entire statutory scheme for preemption and regulation)