Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

1972-04-19
Share:

Headline: Court allows $1 boarding fees at public airports in these cases, upholding New Hampshire law and reversing an Indiana court’s injunction so airports can charge passengers to help pay for construction and maintenance.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows public airports to charge boarding fees to fund construction and maintenance.
  • Permits airlines to collect, remit, and pass passenger fees to travelers.
  • Shifts burden to airlines to prove fees are excessive to win constitutional challenges.
Topics: airport fees, passenger charges, interstate commerce, state and local funding

Summary

Background

One case involved an Indiana airport authority that adopted a $1 charge for each passenger boarding commercial flights; airlines collect the fee (keeping 6% for administration) and the money funds airport construction and upkeep. The Indiana trial and state supreme courts barred the fee as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The other case involved a New Hampshire law charging $1 for passengers on larger scheduled commercial aircraft and 50¢ for smaller scheduled commercial planes, with revenues split between the State aeronautical fund and local airport owners; New Hampshire courts upheld that law.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether these boarding charges violate the Federal Constitution. It distinguished an old case that struck a different kind of travel tax and treated the boarding charges as user fees for publicly provided airport facilities. Relying on earlier decisions about tolls and user charges, the Court said such fees are constitutional if they are uniform, not discriminatory, reasonably related to use, and not excessive. The Court found the fees here met those standards, noted airlines offered no proof the amounts were excessive, and saw no federal law that preempts state and local airport charges.

Real world impact

As applied in these lawsuits, local and state airport authorities may impose modest per-passenger boarding charges to help cover airport costs. Airlines can be required to collect and remit those fees and may pass the cost to travelers. The ruling is limited to the fees and facts presented; different fee designs or proof of excessiveness could produce different results.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented, arguing the fees impermissibly burden the right to travel and that the older Crandall decision should prevent such passenger exactions.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases