Lexplug logoLexplug

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Village of Cedarhurst

District Court, E.D. New York
132 F. Supp. 871, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3883 (1955)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal statutes and regulations governing navigable airspace, which includes the airspace necessary for takeoffs and landings, are so comprehensive as to preempt the field of air traffic regulation, thereby invalidating conflicting local ordinances under the Supremacy Clause.


Facts:

  • The Village of Cedarhurst is situated within one mile of the New York International Airport, known as 'Idlewild'.
  • The Village of Cedarhurst adopted an ordinance that prohibited the operation of aircraft below an altitude of 1,000 feet above the Village.
  • Idlewild is a major international airport handling over two million passengers and significant cargo annually.
  • The Civil Aeronautics Board and Administrator, under federal law, established comprehensive air traffic rules, including specific instrument approach procedures for Idlewild.
  • Under certain weather and wind conditions, these federally mandated safety procedures required aircraft to fly over Cedarhurst at altitudes below 1,000 feet to safely land or execute a missed approach.
  • Uncontradicted expert testimony established that enforcement of the ordinance would substantially restrict operations, and at times, could completely shut down Idlewild Airport.
  • The lowest altitude any plane flew over the village, even under these procedures, was 450 feet.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ten airline companies, The Port of New York Authority, a pilots' association, and nine individual pilots sued the Village of Cedarhurst in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
  • The plaintiffs sought a decree declaring the village's altitude ordinance unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.
  • The Administrator of Civil Aeronautics and the Civil Aeronautics Board intervened as plaintiffs.
  • The District Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily halting enforcement of the ordinance.
  • The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • The defendants' demand for a jury trial was stricken by an order of the court.
  • The case proceeded to a trial on the merits without a jury before the District Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a village ordinance prohibiting aircraft from flying below 1,000 feet within its borders unconstitutionally conflict with the comprehensive federal statutory and regulatory scheme governing navigable airspace for interstate commerce?


Opinions:

Majority - Bruchhausen, District Judge

Yes, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Through the Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority to regulate air traffic, and it has done so comprehensively through the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. This federal legislative and regulatory scheme preempts the entire field of air traffic control to ensure national uniformity and safety. Federal regulations explicitly define navigable airspace to include what is necessary for safe takeoffs and landings, which by necessity occurs below 1,000 feet. The Cedarhurst ordinance directly conflicts with this federal scheme by prohibiting flights that federal regulations deem necessary for safe airport operations. Therefore, the local ordinance is void.



Analysis:

This case is a foundational example of field preemption under the Supremacy Clause, establishing the exclusive authority of the federal government to regulate navigable airspace. The decision prevents a chaotic 'patchwork' of local flight regulations that could cripple the national air transportation system. By affirming that the needs of interstate commerce and national safety standards supersede local police power in this domain, the ruling solidifies a uniform legal framework essential for modern aviation. Future cases involving conflicts between local land use ordinances and federal aviation rules will look to this precedent regarding the scope of federal power.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Village of Cedarhurst (1955) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Village of Cedarhurst