This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Section 14501 of the United States Transportation Code preempts state consumer‑protection tort claims against a tow‑truck company that lawfully towed a vehicle and later disposed of it after the owner failed to pay towing and storage fees.
The petitioner argues that the state consumer‑protection claims are preempted because they target the conduct of non‑consensual tows performed by tow‑truck companies.
Background and question before the Court
The issue is whether Section 14501 of the United States Transportation Code expressly preempts the respondent’s state law consumer‑protection tort claims for damages against a tow‑truck company that towed the vehicle lawfully and later disposed of it after the towing and storage fees were unpaid.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, both claims are preempted because they are directed at the conduct – the type of conduct that tow‑truck companies all over the country engage in – dealing with a particular type of tow referred to in the business as non‑consensual tows.
According to Mr. Bouffard, consumer protection is not an area of traditional state regulation.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Ginsburg, does the law apply only to towing companies that tow and store the automobile, or does it also apply to garages that receive cars for repair?
According to Justice Breyer, and are all those things preempted? I would be amazed.
According to Justice Scalia, it includes storage, is that the point you are coming to, right?
According to Justice Breyer, no, there's a lot of language in the majority pretty much along the line that Justice Scalia said. And not sure if that's your point.
According to Justice Sotomayor, that's your problem, which is, what is it directed to? And that's the real …
According to Justice Kagan, suppose the New Hampshire laws were more onerous than they are. Suppose they said to a towing company, once you've towed this car you have to hold on to it forever. Or suppose they said you have to hire private investigators to figure out who owns the car. Would any of those be preempted?
According to Justice Scalia, i don't understand what you just said. Say it again.
According to Justice Scalia, so it would depend upon how severe the consumer protection law is, is that right? If it's a consumer protection law that really whacks the tow‑truck operator, that would be different from a moderate, benign consumer protection law? We have to examine each consumer protection law on its own, is that it?
- [1] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 15
- [4] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 22
- [6] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 27
- [7] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 41
- [8] 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 22152e7e8919783aa696-r1-eefc4879d57f4c9c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.