Legal Corner: Regulating commercial carriers using municipal police powers

A municipality’s ability to implement traffic regulations is crucial to maintaining the general public’s safety. Despite federal laws preempting certain local regulation of commercial carriers, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in CMCA v. Vail that clarified the extent of a municipality's police powers under the safety exceptions to the federal laws. In a split 2-1 decision, the court held that the district court abused its discretion when it took too strict a view on Vail’s safety ordinance.

Factual background

The Town of Vail has limited vehicular traffic in certain areas for decades. In 2022, the town adopted an ordinance barring most vehicles from pedestrian malls but included certain exceptions for high-volume commercial carriers and town approved contractors. In 2023, Vail removed the exception for high-volume commercial carriers, which spurred legal action by the Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA). CMCA requested a preliminary injunction on both the original and amended ordinances. The district court enjoined the amended ordinance but declined to enjoin the original ordinance. The town appealed the preliminary injunction and CMCA cross-appealed the refusal to enjoin the original ordinance.

Federal preemption

CMCA alleged the town’s ordinances were preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and the Airline Deregulation Act, which preempt most local regulation of routes and services of commercial carriers. However, exceptions exist for local ordinances covering "safety regulatory authority ... with respect to motor vehicles.” The safety exceptions have been broadly interpreted to apply where an ordinance regulating motor vehicles is genuinely responsive to safety concerns. A local regulation is genuinely responsive to safety concerns where the regulation is 1) motivated by legitimate safety concerns and 2) there is a logical nexus between the regulation and the safety need. 

The district court found that the ordinance was motivated by legitimate safety concerns but held that it failed on the second element — there was no logical nexus between the regulation and public safety. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court on the first inquiry, that the ordinance was motivated by a legitimate safety concern. The court affirmed that the presence of additional goals, such as maintaining pedestrian mall appearances and improving the guest experience for tourists, did not undermine the safety concerns that motivated the local legislative action.

Regarding the nexus inquiry, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court inappropriately substituted local policymaking decisions with its own judgment about ways to enhance safety when it decided the town did not have a logical nexus between safety and the regulation at issue.  The Tenth Circuit determined that the local decisions appropriately reflect the town’s regulatory discretion. The connection to safety was not lost because a more expansive restriction may have been more effective for the established goals. The Tenth Circuit recognized the expertise of local town policymakers and concluded that the amended ordinance likely bears a logical nexus to safety.

Delay in suit

Further, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of CMCA’s request to enjoin the original amendment. Because the original ordinance had been in place for more than a year before CMCA sued, it had not shown an irreparable injury necessary for a preliminary injunction.

Municipal implications

As this case only reversed a preliminary injunction, there will be further proceedings in this matter, including discovery, before a final decision is reached as to whether Vail’s ordinances are preempted by the federal laws at issue. Nevertheless, the decision in this case is valuable because it helps establish the appropriate standard to evaluate the safety exceptions at issue.

Despite the presence of federal regulations that generally govern motor vehicle usage on roads, the Tenth Circuit has given some deference to local governments in exercising their police powers to include determinations about their unique local safety needs and concerns. The Tenth Circuit recognizes that while the judiciary are not policymakers, town leaders are, and such leaders typically have expertise in how they make these decisions for their town. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining a factual record to support a town’s decision to enact an ordinance, particularly where local regulations may be pushing up against or competing with state or federal regulations. While municipalities have broad authority to regulate for health, safety, and welfare needs, local ordinances must be rooted in some demonstrable factual basis. The existence of other reasons for the ordinance can make it more difficult to defend the ordinance if it gets challenged.

This column is not intended and should not be taken as legal advice. Municipal officials are always encouraged to consult with their own attorneys.