United States Ninth Circuit

Judgment in favor of defendants in an action alleging that defendants' actions were inconsistent with federal Fitzgerald Act regulations governing the employment of apprentices on public works projects qualifying as "Federal purposes," is affirmed, where: 1) regardless of whether the Fitzgerald Act confers a private right of action, there was subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief from state regulation on the ground that it was preempted by a federal statute; 2) a project qualifies as a "Federal purpose" under 29 C.F.R. section 29.2 when conformity with federal apprenticeship standards is a condition of eligibility for federal assistance; 3) defendants' actions were not in contravention of the federal apprenticeship regulations because the construction projects at issue did not qualify as "Federal purposes," and thus, plaintiffs' preemption claim failed; and 4) the district court properly found for defendants on plaintiffs' claims under the dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/18/2013
• Published 09/18/2013

Judges

• TASHIMA

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel