US Airways, Inc. v. O'DONNELL
627 F.3d 1318
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- NMLCA regulates sale, service, and public consumption of alcohol in NM and requires public service licenses for airline travelers in airplanes.
- US Airways operates interstate flights to/from NM, serving alcohol on aircraft but not removing it from NM premises.
- FAA regulates aviation safety, including aviation-specific beverage service rules (e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 121.575).
- Dana Papst incident (drunk on US Airways flight) and subsequent death/injury prompted NM AGD to cite US Airways and deny license renewal; FAA declined to take action.
- US Airways sought injunctive relief arguing ADA preemption and implied preemption via FAA field preemption; district court denied, finding no preemption.
- Court reverses district court and remands for Twenty-first Amendment balancing; discusses field preemption and FAA centralization of aviation safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA express preemption applies to NM’s licensing of airline beverage service | US Airways argues ADA preempts state regulation of airline services | New Mexico contends express preemption may be limited or inapplicable | Express preemption not reached; field preemption governs |
| Whether the FAA occupies a field of aviation safety to exclude state regulation | US Airways asserts FAA field preempts NM regulation | New Mexico argues no field preemption or coexistence | Field preemption established; regulation implicates aviation safety and is occupied by federal law |
| Whether NM regulation implicates the field occupied by federal aviation safety, including training requirements | US Airways contends NM training requirements clash with FAA training regime | NM requires training standards that may be inconsistent | Yes, NM’s scheme implicates and is preempted in the field of aviation safety |
| Whether Twenty-first Amendment balancing is required and appropriate | New Mexico cannot balance when preemption applies | Balancing required to weigh state licensing power against federal interests | Balancing required; remanded for district court to conduct Twenty-first Amendment balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) (uniform regulation of air safety; preemption concerns)
- Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980) (no bright line between federal and state liquor powers; balancing urged)
- Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 985 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir.1993) (highly relied upon; noted FAA savings clause cannot control implied preemption analysis)
- Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir.2007) (FAA field preemption in aviation safety; field fully occupied by federal law)
- Cuomo v. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., Inc., 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir.2008) (FAA field preemption; comprehensive federal regulatory scheme supports occupancy of field)
- Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Sys., Inc., 409 F.3d 784 (6th Cir.2005) (FAA field preemption in aviation safety)