Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Black

Passenger whose spouse was denied first-class seat on oversold flight brought action against airline to recover for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of airline. Passenger appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed finding the Airline Deregulation Act does not pre-empt such claims and remanded the matter for trial. Delta petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review and review was granted. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted claims.

This case concerns the scope of this preemption provision, specifically, its application to state breach of contract and misrepresentation claims challenging an airline's ticketing and boarding procedures. The Texas Supreme Court acknowledged federal preemption of state law is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that "the Laws of the United States ... shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law conflicts with federal law, the state law is preempted and "without effect." Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981).

Preemption can take one of several forms. A federal law may preempt a state law expressly. Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. Estate of Wells, 52 S.W.3d 737, 743 (Tex.2001). It may also preempt a state law impliedly, either (i) when the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to support a reasonable inference that Congress left no room for supplementary state regulation or (ii) if the state law actually conflicts with federal regulations. Id. A state law presents an actual conflict when a party cannot comply with both state and federal regulations or when the state law would obstruct Congress' purposes and objectives. Id.

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978( ADA ) states "may not enact or enforce a law ... related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier...." 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). To answer whether plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the ADA , the Court recognized it must first determine whether the claims were related to an airline's prices or services within the meaning of the ADA 's preemption provision. The Court held an airline's boarding procedures and seating policies "relate to" the services an airline provides to its customers, finding most courts generally agree that state law claims involving seating and boarding procedures relate to services within the meaning of the ADA and are an integral part of the services that an airline provides.

The second step in the preemption analysis involved determining whether Plaintiff’s claims, if allowed, would constitute enactment or enforcement of a state law within the meaning of the ADA 's preemption clause. The court held that a state's common and statutory law cannot operate against an airline in this context when it would constitute state enforcement of a law relating to airline services. Because Plaintiff’s claims relate to the services Delta provided and if allowed would amount to enactment or enforcement of state law, they are preempted.