Court turns down challenge to Amazon’s San Bernardino airport hub

The logo of Amazon is pictured inside the company’s office in Bengaluru, India, April 20, 2018. REUTERS/Abhishek N. Chinnappa

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected an environmental challenge to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s approval of Amazon’s new 600,000-square-foot cargo facility at southern California’s San Bernardino International Airport.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a consolidated petition for review by California’s attorney general and green groups including the Sierra Club, which alleged the FAA botched an environmental impact study underlying its approval of the now operating Eastgate Air Cargo Facility.

The majority’s ruling drew a fierce dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, who wrote that the “case reeks of environmental racism,” and questioned whether the outcome would have been different had the project been “sited anywhere near the wealthy enclave where the multibillionaire owner of Amazon resides.”

San Bernardino County, home to the facility, is “overwhelmingly” populated by people of color, Rawlinson wrote.

In a concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay noted that none of the petitioners had claimed in the case that “racial animus” or discrimination helped guide the FAA’s 2019 decision.

Bumatay called his colleague’s assertions “unfair to the employees of the FAA… who stand accused of condoning racist actions without a chance to defend themselves.”

An FAA spokesperson said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Amazon in April launched its San Bernardino “regional air hub,” where workers load and unload aircrafts and sort packages for delivery, according to the company. Alisa Carroll, a spokesperson for the Seattle-based e-commerce giant, declined to comment.

Writing for the majority, Senior U.S. District Judge Eugene Siler, who sat by designation, said the petitioners hadn’t adequately argued that the FAA skirted its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act in concluding the facility would have “no significant impact.”

The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the FAA should have studied more broadly the facility’s air quality impacts stemming from daily trips by planes and trucks. These “add to the burden” of nearby neighborhoods “that already breathe some of the most polluted air in the nation,” they wrote.

Adrian Martinez, an attorney for the environmental plaintiffs, highlighted the dissenting opinion and added that San Bernardino residents “have been living in the shadow of mega-warehouses that… pump incredible amounts of diesel particulate matter.”

The office of California’s attorney general said it was reviewing the decision.

Mark Gibbs, a director at the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, said the facility cost about $200 million to build.

The case is Center for Community Action, et al v. FAA, et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-70272.

For Center for Community Action, et al: Adrian Martinez of Earthjustice

For State of California: Yuting Chi with the Office of the Attorney General of California

For FAA: Rebecca Jaffe with the U.S. Department of Justice

For intervenor San Bernardino International Airport Authority: Ronald Scholar of Cole Huber

For intervenor Eastgate Bldg 1, LLC: Michael Carroll of Latham & Watkins