Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Colorado Motor Carriers Association v. Town of Vail

Colorado Motor Carriers Association v. Town of Vail 

1:23-cv-02752United States District of Colorado (D. Colo.)1 entry
Filing Date
Document
Type
12/15/2023
Motion for preliminary injunction granted in part.
The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Town of Vail ordinance that restricted “high-volume commercial carrier” delivery trucks from entering pedestrian mall areas. The intent of the ordinance was to promote use of electric vehicles for “last-mile” deliveries to improve pedestrian safety and the “guest experience” and also to provide environmental benefits such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The court found that the plaintiff—an organization of licensed motor carrier companies—showed that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 and the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 likely expressly preempted the ordinance and that the plaintiff showed it would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.
Decision

Colorado Motor Carriers Association v. Town of Vail 

24-1017 & 24-1024United States Tenth Circuit (10th Cir.)1 entry
Filing Date
Document
Type
08/29/2025
Preliminary injunction reversed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Town of Vail’s ordinance restricting motor vehicles in the Town’s pedestrian areas. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and the Airline Deregulation Act preempted the ordinance because safety-related exceptions to preemption applied. (When it first adopted restrictions, Vail described the purposes as to “improve the guest experience by reducing the number of oversize vehicles in the pedestrian areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of electric vehicles for the final leg of deliveries,” but neither the Tenth Circuit nor the district court’s decision addressed the potential climate change benefits of the ordinance.)
Decision