Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

Background

Fourteen commercial airlines challenged the Employee Protection Program (EPP) in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 after the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in INS v. Chadha declared one-house legislative vetoes unconstitutional. The EPP created two protections for workers displaced by deregulation: a monthly federal assistance program (never funded) and a duty-to-hire preference giving long‑service airline employees a first right of hire within the industry for ten years. The Act also required the Labor Secretary to issue rules and included a 60‑day one‑House veto on any final rule. Airlines sued, arguing that once Chadha invalidated such legislative vetoes, the veto in §43(f)(3) was unconstitutional and the whole EPP should fall with it.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress would have wanted the hiring preference to survive without the veto. It found the hiring duty operates largely on its own: the statute spells out who gets preference, which carriers are covered, and how it applies, so the Secretary’s role is mainly administrative. The Court noted that the Act also required agencies to send proposed rules to congressional transportation committees and wait 30 days, giving Congress another way to review rules. Legislative history showed Congress focused on protecting airline workers and seldom discussed the veto. Applying the usual severability test, the Court concluded that the veto could be excised and the duty‑to‑hire provisions would function consistent with Congress’s intent.

Real world impact

As a result, the Court affirmed that the hiring preference stays in force even though the one‑House veto is invalid. This preserves an industry‑wide hiring protection for qualifying employees, while removing a congressional shortcut for blocking Labor Department rules; Congress still can review rules or pass new laws. The monthly compensation plan remains inactive because no appropriations were made.