Enforcing Federal Supremacy: Relief against Federal-State Regulatory Conflicts

Abstract

fornia claims as its own notwithstanding some thirty miles of Pacific Ocean separating the two. One may reach Catalina by boat or by plane, the latter operated by United Air Lines, an air carrier in interstate and intrastate commerce. This Catalina air service had been under the unchallenged jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Board for twelve years when, in September, 1951, United received a letter from the California Public Utilities Commission instructing it to file its Catalina tariffs with the Commission. Then followed a series of conferences between United and the Commission in which United claimed, and the Commission denied, that the CAB had exclusive jurisdiction over the Catalina operation. These conferences proved inconclusive and in June, 1952, United brought suit in the federal district court for declaratory relief against the Commission's attempt to interfere with the CAB's jurisdiction, United Air Lines, Inc., et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California.' United's problem was one that has become increasingly common with the steady expansion of administrative regulation by the states. Federal regulation having been extended to its constitutional limits in many fields, the system of federalism is now being put to the test with unpiecedented frequency as state regulatory power is being pushed to its constitutional limits.2 The problems of federalism in action in such fields as labor relations, taxation and public utilities are before the public eye constantly.3 The United case sheds no light on the distribution of regulatory powers between state and federal governments. It is no less of interest, however, because it focuses on the practical problem of the litigant who is the object of regulation and is caught between the massive powers of governments in