Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

PETITIONER: Alaska Airlines, Inc.
RESPONDENT: Brock
LOCATION: Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Courthouse

DOCKET NO.: 85-920
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 480 US 678 (1987)
ARGUED: Dec 01, 1986
DECIDED: Mar 24, 1987

ADVOCATES:
Louis R. Cohen - on behalf of the Respondents
Louis R. Cohen - for respondents
William T. Coleman, Jr. - on behalf of the Petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 01, 1986 in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - March 24, 1987 in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 85-920, Alaska Airlines versus Brock will be announced by Justice Blackmun.

Harry A. Blackmun:

Well in this case the petitioners are 14 of the major air carriers of the country.

The case comes to us from the District of Columbia Circuit.

And it concerned the so-called Employee Protection Program in Section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

And this imposed on the air carriers a duty to hire qualified airline personnel who are dislocated as a result of the deregulation.

Section 43 authorize the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations.

But that section also contained a legislating-veto provision and it is that provision which is the focus of this lawsuit.

The airlines filed suit and the District Court gathered summary judgment in their favor.

Holding that the legislative-veto provision was unconstitutional under the Chadha case decided here not too long ago, and striking down the entire Employee Protection Program on the ground that the veto provision was not severable from the remainder of the Act.

On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed that judgment.

The case came here, and in an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and hold that Section 43's legislative-veto provision is indeed severable from the remainder of the Employee Protection Program.

The Court is unanimous in this ruling.