Teamsters & Sierra Club ask D.C. Court of Appeals for “En Banc” hearing on failed Mexican truck lawsuit

James Hoffa and his Teamsters lost yet another frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to stop the US compliance with our NAFTA obligation and promises, but still he tries to game the court systemThe International Brotherhood of Teamsters along with the Sierra Club today asked for a “En Banc” hearing on its challenge to the Department of Transportation’s cross-border trucking program with Mexico.

An “En Banc” hearing is a request for a hearing before the full Court. A three judge panel in April denied the Teamsters and OOIDA’s petition for review, denying all 13 issues raised as not being “persuasive”.

In the Teamsters press release, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said;

“Our members who drive for a living should not have to put their lives at risk because dangerous trucks are allowed free use of our roads, Nothing in the court’s decision says Mexican trucks will be safe.”

 

FMCSA and BTS statistics show Mexican carriers to be substantially safer than their U.S. counterparts, further debunking Hoffa’s worn out claim of “dangerous Mexican trucks”.

Hoffa further made the erroneous and spurious claim that the court had found that Mexico-domiciled trucks don’t have to comply with federal safety requirements for vehicles introduced into interstate commerce. The Teamsters believe that conclusion is not only wrong, but contradicts a previous D.C. Circuit opinion about safety regulations for tires, the National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar.

That’s not exactly what the Court found, but the truth somehow eludes opponents of Cross Border trucking with Mexico.At issue here is Teamsters claim that the pilot program is unlawful because not all Mexico-domiciled trucks are required to display a decal certifying that the truck complies with American safety standards. Opponents fail to recognize that the trucks cleared to participate in the Cross Border program are imported into Mexico from the United States and thus comply with the decal requirement.But even if they didn’t,that decal requirement applies only if the trucks are imported into the United States” or are “introduced.in interstate commerce” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 49 U.S.C. § 30112(a)(1)

The D.C. Court of Appeals, in their denial of the Teamsters and OOIDA’s petition for review, specifically ruled on the National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar. cited in Teamsters appeal. The Court stated;

The Teamsters cite National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, where this Court interpreted a definition of interstate commerce in a different statute to include all vehicles “on a public highway upon which interstate traffic is moving.” 483 F.2d 1294, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (Robinson, J., controlling opinion). But Brinegar did not interpret the statute at issue in this case and did not involve foreign commerce and thus that case did not reach the question presented here. See id. at 1305. As a result, Brinegar does not foreclose the agency’s interpretation of interstate commerce, and the agency’s interpretation is otherwise reasonable. Therefore, we uphold the agency’s interpretation.

 

It’s simply the efforts of a small minded little man, who’s popularity with the rank and file is at an historic low, gaming the system for his own gain. Were labor unions in Mexico not as strong as they were, and Mexican law permitted Hoffa to organize in that country, he would welcome the Mexican trucks and truckers with open arms, as he did the Canadians once Canada relaxed their laws and allowed him to organize in that country.

An “En Banc” appeal is not automatic. It can be summarily rejected by the Court without cause or reason and we predict that is what will happen here with this nuisance appeal.

You can download the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision below.

[ad]