Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,275 chars

By contrast, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Hammond, 726 F.2d
483 (9th Cir. 1984), owners of oil tankers challenged a state
regulation forbidding the discharge of any ballast water—
clean or dirty—near the state’s shores, claiming that it was
preempted by federal agency regulations that expressly per-
mitted the discharge of clean ballast water close to shore. Id.
at 485-86. We found no actual conflict because the goals of
the two regulations were the same, id. at 496, and because it
was not physically impossible to comply with both, id. at 499.
            BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC            14445
We recognized that “the state law prohibits acts that the fed-
eral regulations allow but do not require.” Id. at 498. We fur-
ther noted that “[a] finding of preemption is particularly
inappropriate when the state is regulating conduct permitted
by federal regulation, but only as an exception to a broad fed-
eral prohibition.” Id. (citing Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md.,
437 U.S. 117, 132 (1978)). We then distinguished de la
Cuesta, on the ground that in Hammond, “the state is merely
eliminating one exception to a general federal prohibition,
rather than asserting authority over an area in direct conflict
with overriding federal policy.” Id. at 498 n.19.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text