Ninth Circuit Limits State-Law Claims for Aircraft Air Pollution but Rejects Broader Attempt to Channel Airport-Impact Claims into Exclusive Federal Review

By: Steven M. Taber, Esq.

Summary:

• Development: In Codoni v. Port of Seattle, the Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Air Act preempts state-law claims seeking relief for air pollution emitted directly by aircraft, but rejected the argument that all airport-impact claims must proceed through exclusive federal review.
• Why it matters: Communities face greater limits in using state tort law to seek damages or remediation for air pollution emitted directly by aircraft, while airports and airlines gain protection from state or local aircraft-emissions standards that differ from federal requirements.
• Key Takeaway: The decision most directly affects aircraft-emissions claims. Other airport-impact disputes, including claims involving aircraft noise, will likely require a closer look at the specific claim, the defendant, and the remedy being sought.

On September 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a significant decision concerning federal preemption and the remedies available to communities affected by airport operations. In Codoni v. Port of Seattle, No. 25-2830, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2026), the court held that the Clean Air Act expressly preempts state-law nuisance, trespass, negligence, and related claims seeking relief for air pollution emitted directly by aircraft. At the same time, the court rejected a much broader argument that claims involving federally regulated aviation activity necessarily constitute impermissible collateral attacks on FAA or EPA decisions. The Ninth Circuit designated the decision for publication.

See the rest of the article here.