NM can yank US Airways' liquor license

[hp_fa]

Maybe US should discontinue all service from NM

As of right now, that would not seem to solve the entire issue because the judge seems to take the position that US Airways cannot serve alcohol while overflying New Mexico absent a liquor license. What happens if every state that is overflown, but doesn't have scheduled service to any point in that state, demands that airlines have licenses to serve while overflying that state?

 

[FlyUs]

As of right now, that would not seem to solve the entire issue because the judge seems to take the position that US Airways cannot serve alcohol while overflying New Mexico absent a liquor license. What happens if every state that is overflown, but doesn't have scheduled service to any point in that state, demands that airlines have licenses to serve while overflying that state?

It seems obvious that this guy was drinking at other establishments.. halting service may not solve all the issues but it definitely sends a strong message: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[ClueByFour]

This is narrow thinking. The FAA doesn't care is US Airways can serve alcohol or not. They care if a state can mandate avaiation safety regulation within their own territory. With governements, its always a pissing contest, and you can bet the FAA would joing USAirways all the way to the supreme court on this one.

The part you had right was "The FAA doesn't care is US Airways can serve alcohol or not."

When and/if New Mexico tries to set their own safety regs, I'm sure the feds will be interested.

 

[JS]

In my opinion, the state of New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to cite US Airways for serving alcohol on a PHX-DFW flight. If the company has no officers in the state (pretty likely) and is not doing any business in the state (e.g., stop flying to ABQ), how would NM legally cite US Airways for this violation? Extradite Dougie from PHX?

Physically, legally, whatever, the only way an airline can be cited for actions taken in the air over a state that it never touches is by the feds!

 

[necigrad]

In my opinion, the state of New Mexico does not have jurisdiction to cite US Airways for serving alcohol on a PHX-DFW flight. If the company has no officers in the state (pretty likely) and is not doing any business in the state (e.g., stop flying to ABQ), how would NM legally cite US Airways for this violation? Extradite Dougie from PHX?

No, they could use any of the web tracking software to determine ifa flight flew into "their" "jurisdiction". They could then take that flight on another day, verify alcohol being served, and then cite US Airways with a fine or ban the aircraft from their airspace.

Physically, legally, whatever, the only way an airline can be cited for actions taken in the air over a state that it never touches is by the feds!

Not according to New Mexico or the Judge, and that's the problem. The Judge ruled that the FAA is NOT the sole jurisdictional agency; New Mexico has jurisdiction as well. That this is against the 10th Ammendment and Federal law was ignored.

 

[JS]

US should take advantage of this and sell medical marijuana on board flights to, from or over New Mexico. Same goes for Colorado, California, and a few other states I think. US could operate an on-board whorehouse on PHX-SEA flights when they are over rural Nevada.

 

[FA Mikey]

Not according to New Mexico or the Judge, and that's the problem. The Judge ruled that the FAA is NOT the sole jurisdictional agency; New Mexico has jurisdiction as well. That this is against the 10th Ammendment and Federal law was ignored.

How?

 

[hp_fa]

How?

When the judge ruled that they have concurrent jurisdiction.

This is from the decision.

In the present case, New Mexico has the authority to control US Airways’ distribution of alcohol in airplanes that are in New Mexico airspace for two reasons. First, New Mexico has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over events occurring in its airspace. See Braniff, 347 U.S. at 595; Cleveland, 985 F.2d at 1444. Thus, the in-flight service of alcohol is “[t]he transportation or importation into any State . . . for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors.â€￾ U.S. Const. Amend. XXII, § 2. Second, even lacking concurrent jurisdiction, New Mexico has the authority to regulate liquor moving through its territory and may take “appropriate steps to prevent the unlawful diversionâ€￾ of the alcohol into its regulated market. See North Dakota, 495 U.S. at 431-32. US Airways cites Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938) for the proposition a state cannot require a license in order to transport alcohol into an exclusively federal enclave. [Doc 65 at 32] The Supreme Court, however, later explained that the decision in Collins “might have been otherwise if California had sought to regulate or control the transportation of the liquor there involved from the time of its entry into the State until its delivery at the national park, in the interest of preventing unlawful diversion into her territory.â€￾ North Dakota, 495 U.S. at 431-32 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that US Airways’ activity is encompassed by the strictures of the Twenty-first Amendment.

 

[FA Mikey]

Yea and the case law cited backs the decision. There is also 10th amendment case law that limits the Federal government from over reaching in to states.

 

[BajaBabe]

How many lessons before we learn

 

[necigrad]

Because I think a lot of this case (arguements both supporting and in opposition) hinges on the 10th Ammendment, I want to post it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The question that would come before the Supreme Court (if it goes that far) will be whether or not some powers withheld from the States, such as laws coverered under 14CFR (Aviation) are considered "reserved to the States". By and large this has be construed to mean that if the US Government has the lawmaking authority then the States may not. This also means that if the US has NOT made laws then the States have an inalienable right to set their own laws.

Laws regarding consumption and transportation have (at least) for the most part been the sole domain on the States individually. The Federal Government has always been the lawmaking authority for all things aviation. The two situations paths have crossed.

Since the US has set all laws regarding aviation, do they have the exclusive right as delegated by the Constitution (by I THINK it's Article 1)? Has this burden not been met and the States have been delegate the authority by being delegated the right to legislate alcohol? This is why Supreme Court Justices get paid big bucks, it's a very convoluted issue.

 

[hp_fa]

My Ouija says SCOTUS based on federal question(s) and differing opinions of the Circuits. The only thing that I think will stop it is if either side turns away in this game of "chicken".

Your Ouija says?

 

[cynic]

My Ouija says SCOTUS based on federal question(s) and differing opinions of the Circuits. The only thing that I think will stop it is if either side turns away in this game of "chicken".

Your Ouija says?

The second amendment case the SCOTUS will be reviewing this term should give us an indication as to how they may rule if/when it gets to them.

 

[hp_fa]

How so? I don't see great connection because the Second Amendment case lacks the regulations that have been allowed to be promulgated by agencies of the federal government concerning aviation by both the FAA & DoT. However I could be looking at it incorrectly.

 

[necigrad]

The second amendment case the SCOTUS will be reviewing this term should give us an indication as to how they may rule if/when it gets to them.

"if/when"? The Court WILL rule on this this year. Of that there is no doubt. There also seems to be a general consensus of "those who know" that the Chicago (or was it the State?) law will be overturned. The DC case layed the groundwork there, and the Court will build on that. At the same time the "those who know" have opined that while the Members of the Court have changed, the left or right leaning hasn't. And as hp_fa said, that case has no bearing on this one.

Also, everyone needs to remember something about the Federal Court system. There is frequently appeals made on cases that are either unclear or a generally surprising result. This will go to the Apellate Court if anyone chooses to push it, and US Airways should. The ATA and FAA should be fully in support as well. District Judges are often good at making controversial decisions, right or wrong. Look at the pilots DFR case against USAPA. I'm not commenting here if it (IMO) was the right decision, but it was most certianly controversial. One Judge does not have the final authority for a reason; there's always more steps up to the Supreme Court.