Together with my colleagues, Robert Thomas and Christi-Anne Kudo Chock, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Hawaii's Ocean Tourism Coalition in support of the Petition a Writ of Certiorari that UFO Chuting filed in the case of UFO Chuting, Inc. v. Smith. My original post is here. The Ninth Circuit opinion is here. My post on UFO's Petition is here. And, the cert petition itself is here.
In a nutshell, the Ninth Circuit upheld the State of Hawaii's ban on parasailing off the coast of Lahaina because while it did exclude federally sanctioned coastwise navigation, it only did so for five months of the year. As such, it was not a complete exclusion which would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also found that Hawaii's ban on parasailing did not conflict with the federal regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Our brief honed in on the Supremacy Clause issue, seeking Court intervention on the following Question Presented: May state regulation totally prohibit the free navigation of federally licensed vessels for five months of the year without violating the Supremacy Clause?
One of the points we made in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case was that states are increasingly adopting regulations stretching their jurisdiction into areas of traditional federal concern. I posted about the California's fuel regulation struck down by the Ninth Circuit, here, and Hawaii's fuel ban, here. From Holland & Knight, it looks like the California Air Resources Board is trying, again, to regulate fuels on vessels plying its waters.
Comments