Archive for the 'CEI v DOT' Category

CEI v DOT: ORDER: Schedule, Feb 14, 2017

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
O R D E R
It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that this case be scheduled for oral argument on April 10, 2017, at 9:30 A.M. The composition of the argument panel will usually be revealed thirty days prior to the date of oral argument on the court’s web site […]

CEI v DOT: RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF, Dec 28, 2016

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
The Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) reasonably concluded that e-cigarettes fall within the statutory ban on “smoking“ in aircraft.
. . .
The Secretary‘s regulatory definition, which includes e-cigarettes within the meaning of “smoking,“ furthers the statutory purpose of preserving cabin air quality, avoiding passenger and crew discomfort, and reducing crewmembers‘ exposure […]

CEI v DOT: BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, Nov 28, 2016

Monday, November 28th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, the plain meaning of the term “smoking” does not unambiguously refer to the combustion of tobacco products. Dictionary definitions support a broad meaning of the term “smoking” as inhaling and exhaling the smoke or fumes of a device, and there is no reason to exclude e-cigarettes or […]

CEI v DOT: FINAL REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, Nov 22, 2016

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Thirty years ago this Court noted that “some will find ambiguity in a ‘No Smoking’ sign.”1 DOT has done exactly that, claiming that Congress’s 1989 smoking ban on airlines is so ambiguous that the agency is entitled, under Chevron, to redefine it to encompass e-cigarettes. DOT’s claim runs directly counter to […]

CEI v DOT: FINAL OPENING BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, Nov 22, 2016

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

The PDF of the main argument (pp 1-74) is Here.
The PDFs of the “STATUTORY ADDENDUM” and “ADDENDUM ON STANDING” are too large to upload.
EXCERPT:
DOT improperly banned the use of e-cigarettes under the anti-smoking statute, 49 U.S.C. § 41706, because e-cigarettes do not burn (or even contain) tobacco, much less produce smoke. DOT’s reliance […]

CEI v DOT: JOINT APPENDIX, Nov 14 2016

Friday, November 25th, 2016

11/14/2016 Open Document JOINT APPENDIX [1645941] filed by Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association and Gordon Cummings. [Volumes: 1] [Service Date: 11/14/2016 ] [16-1128] (Bader, Hans)
EXCERPT:
I certify that the attached index is a list of all the documents filed in Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044. The documents comprise the administrative record in the matter under review […]

CEI v DOT: PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF filed by Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association and Gordon Cummings, Nov 4, 2016

Monday, November 7th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Thirty years ago this Court noted that “some will find ambiguity in a ‘No Smoking’ sign.” DOT has done exactly that, claiming that Congress’s 1989 smoking ban on airlines is so ambiguous that the agency is entitled, under Chevron, to redefine it to encompass e-cigarettes. DOT’s claim runs directly […]

CEI v DOT: BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, Oct 7, 2016

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
To protect airline passengers from secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol, the final rule clarifies that the use of e-cigarettes on aircraft constitutes “smoking” within the meaning of the statutory ban on smoking on aircraft. The final rule is a reasonable exercise of the Secretary’s broad authority to prohibit “smoking” in aircraft, […]