City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.
Headline: City nighttime jet curfew blocked as Court finds federal aviation law preempts municipal noise curfews, shifting control over overnight takeoffs and noise rules to FAA and EPA nationwide.
Holding: The Court ruled that federal aviation laws and the Noise Control Act create a pervasive federal scheme, so local overnight jet curfews at the airport are preempted and cannot be enforced.
- Prevents cities from imposing overnight jet curfews at local airports
- Leaves aircraft noise standards and scheduling to FAA and EPA rulemaking
- Reduces local ability to time restrict takeoffs for noise relief
Summary
Background
A California city passed an ordinance banning so-called pure jet aircraft from taking off from its local airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The rule would have stopped one regularly scheduled intrastate passenger flight that left weekly at 11:30 p.m., plus some private flights. Airlines and the airport operator sued to stop the city from enforcing the curfew, and lower courts found the ordinance unconstitutional before the case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Justices focused on whether federal aviation law leaves any room for local curfews. The majority explained that Congress and federal agencies already regulate airspace, aircraft safety, and noise through the Federal Aviation Act, FAA rules, and the Noise Control Act of 1972 that gives EPA a role. The Court said that this federal scheme is so comprehensive that local time-based takeoff bans would interfere with nationwide traffic flow, safety, and federal planning. The Court therefore held the federal rules preempt the city ordinance. The Court relied on findings that curfews cause flight bunching, congestion, safety problems, and conflict with federal airspace management.
Real world impact
As a result, cities cannot enforce similar overnight jet takeoff bans at nonproprietary airports when the federal scheme governs flight operations and noise. Noise questions and scheduling choices are left to FAA and EPA rulemaking and national procedures. A dissent argued Congress did not clearly intend to oust local police-power measures and noted the ordinance affected very few scheduled flights, but the majority nonetheless found federal preemption.
Opinions in this case:
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?