Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton (18-389)

argument 18-389

Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s position on applying California wage‑and‑hour law to the outer continental shelf?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case eighteen three hundred and eighty

Mr. Clement 0:03

nine, Parker Drilling Management Services versus Newton. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, California wage and hour law is neither applicable on the outer continental shelf nor consistent with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Ninth Circuit's contrary approach, which treats California as supplying the rule of decision whenever California law pertains to the subject matter at hand and is not preempted by federal law, is inconsistent with the text and context of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. More particularly, by treating state law as the default rule and only to be displaced by inconsistent federal law, the Ninth Circuit effectively treats the outer continental shelf no differently from the mainland where California is sovereign and contradicts the most basic judgment countries.

Elena Kagan 0:57

Not quite. The Secretary could override The um state law, which is not what generally happens in conflict preemption. federal law federal agents have to enforce state law. There are substantial differences built into the act. Um what I don't see is a clear statement that says something like you want the word applicable to me. only if there's a gap or a void.

Mr. Clement 1:29

Well, just to sort of my order, I think some of the unusual characteristics about state law when it's borrowed and then sort of transformed into federal law on the shelf actually, I think, help provide the context that informs the meaning of the word applicable. I I don't think there's any real doubt here that applicable means suitable or appropriate or fit for a purpose. So then the question really becomes when is it appropriate to have state law be transformed? transformed into federal law for use on the shelf. But

Elena Kagan 1:58

tell me why when it's not inconsistent. Meaning I and and that's my problem. It's suitable only bec and the language says when it's inconsistent. But here federal law clearly states that state law can supplement federal law. So where's the inconsistency?

Mr. Clement 2:19

Well to I I want to answer your question, Justice Sotomer, but I first I do want to point out I view the statute as really having two requirements that it has to be state law applies to the extent it is applicable and not inconsistent. Now, to talk to the non-inconsistent piece, here I think the inconsistency is pretty glaring. In fact, the whole reason we're here is because California has a very different rule for addressing sleeping time on the employer's premise. Premises than the Federal rule. And the Federal regulators looked at this and they decided generally we're not going to have sleeping time be treated as work hours, and we're generally going to respect the agreements of the employer and the employee.

Mr. Clement 2:57

California looked at that specifically and said, well, we like that rule for health care workers and one or two others, but not for most other workers. We reject the Federal analysis. Now, to me, that makes them a very important thing. Pretty glaringly inconsistent. Now, my friends on the other side, and I take the import of your question, would say, ah, but there's the savings clause. Well, there's at least three problems I see with the savings clause. The first is the savings clause is not even implicated by its terms unless State law and Federal law are inconsistent. If state law and federal law are consistent, you don't need the savings clause, you never get there. They don't the when the savings clause applies, moreover, it doesn't matter.

Mr. Clement 3:34

Doesn't make Federal law and state law consistent. It basically tells the employer which of two inconsistent laws they need to follow, which I think is quite different. The second problem with the savings clause is I think you can't divorce the savings clause from the reason that it's in the FLSA and most statutes, which is to respect the fact that States are and have been since the framing the primary regulatory. Regulators of employment relationships and the like. And so when a state is applying its law in its sovereign territory, I would say it's understandable and laudable that the Federal Government wants to say, well, your state law can apply if it's more demanding.