Bus/limo/taxi Transportation Trucking Federal agencies

OOIDA ‘extremely disappointed’ after Supreme Court declines to hear ELD case

Reprints
purple-semitruck.jpg
Photo: KingWu/iStockphoto

Grain Valley, MO – The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association plans to continue its legal pursuit in Congress after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 12 against hearing a lawsuit challenging a federal mandate requiring commercial motor vehicle drivers to use electronic devices in place of paper logs.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court does not see the merit in reviewing our case with so many questions about its constitutionality,” OOIDA President and CEO Jim Johnston said in a June 12 press release.

OOIDA appealed to the Supreme Court in April, arguing against a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration mandate of “warrantless inspections” of CMV drivers that the association believes violates Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

“That intrusion on the rights of hard-working Americans cannot be justified,” Johnston said in the release. “The mandate will not improve safety. It will, however, be another costly regulatory burden heaped upon an already over-regulated industry.”

In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that the objections in an OOIDA lawsuit against the mandate, filed on behalf of two CMV drivers, fell short. The court reinforced FMCSA’s compliance date of Dec. 18.

OOIDA subsequently petitioned for a rehearing en banc in December, but the court denied the petition in January. OOIDA further challenges “many fundamental and basic questions about the mandate,” Johnston said in the release.

FMCSA claims paper logs can be manipulated. ELDs record details from each vehicle at repeated intervals, including date, time, location, engine hours, vehicle miles, and information identifying the driver, vehicle and motor carrier.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)