Earlier, The Road began exploring the legal questions surrounding the Port of Los Angeles' sweeping policy to reduce deadly diesel truck emissions for the long haul.

We've already established it's highly unlikely that this highly polluting industry could persuade a judge of "irreparable harm." That's the requirement to obtain an injunction to bring the Clean Trucks Program to an altogether halt. So today we take a sneak peak into the expected courtroom drama, The For-Profit Polluters vs. America's Green Growth Port, to tackle the main issue: Could free-market case law supersede federal environmental mandates (and in turn force the lowest paid workers in the industry to foot the bill for cleaner commerce)?

The American Trucking Association, in its perpetual whining over any and all accountability, cites a recent decision involving tobacco deliveries in Maine as a "slam dunk," saying the ruling precludes licensed motor carriers from having to assume responsibility for clean trucks and the driver workforce. Dr. Stephen Diamond, professor of law at Santa Clara University, responded to that basketball metaphor with his own, and calls the argument "over the backboard."

While it's not surprising the ATA obstructionists hope the federal motor carrier statute would apply here, Dr. Diamond gives more weight to the "market proprietary exception."

The Port of Los Angeles is a landlord. Allowing access or exercising other rights typically associated with being a property owner also form the basis of a proprietary interest sufficient to justify application of the market participant exception.

The Port is also clearly in the business of providing services in competition with other port facilities, and markets itself as such. Pollution, congestion and security issues are of particular concern because of the devastating impact these problems have on the Port's own commercial interests in maximizing shipping and real estate revenues.

In other words, the Port can require a contract from drayage companies to protect its own proprietary interests, in this case an asset-based system that must ensure clean air in order to grow to meet exploding trade demands.

That's why general counsel Thomas Russell simply stated the LA Clean Trucks Program is "legally defensible." He is satisfied that the City is acting in a proprietary capacity in maintaining and operating its harbor, because it is the right and necessary means to continue to do business and alleviate environmental and public health impact in the community.

This layman wholeheartedly agrees with that sound legal analysis.