Airlines for America v. Transportation Security Administration
780 F.3d 409
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- TSA administers passenger screening and may impose a uniform security fee on passengers for air transportation originating at U.S. airports under 49 U.S.C. § 44940.
- In 2013 Congress set the fee at $5.60 per one-way trip; TSA implemented the change by Interim Final Rule in 2014.
- Petitioners (airline trade groups) challenged two aspects: (1) TSA’s authority to charge more than $11.20 on certain multi–one-way-trip round trips (mooted by subsequent congressional amendment), and (2) TSA’s authority to charge the fee for passengers whose travel begins abroad but includes a domestic connecting flight.
- The court held the first claim moot due to later statutory amendment; it considered standing and the merits as to the second claim.
- Court found the airlines had Article III standing (fees plausibly reduce demand for air travel) and rejected the airlines’ statutory interpretation, upholding TSA’s rule charging a fee when any covered U.S. segment exists in the itinerary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether airlines have standing to challenge TSA fee rule | Airlines argued no injury because passengers, not airlines, directly pay fees | TSA argued airlines lacked evidence fees caused economic harm to airlines | Court: Airlines have standing—economic incidence likely reduces demand for tickets, causing injury |
| Whether § 44940(c)(1) limits fee to one-way trips that originate in the U.S. (so fares beginning abroad with U.S. connections are exempt) | Airlines: Clause “originates at an airport in the United States” modifies “one-way trip,” so trips beginning abroad are exempt | TSA: Clause modifies “air transportation or intrastate air transportation,” so any covered U.S. segment permits fee | Court: Ambiguity resolved for TSA—clause modifies air transportation; TSA reasonably may charge fee when itinerary includes covered U.S. air segment |
| Whether “air transportation” refers only to whole trips or also to segments | Airlines: Definition implies whole-trip meaning; domestic tail segments that are part of a trip beginning abroad should not qualify | TSA: Term can cover segments; any covered domestic air transportation permits fee | Court: Term can cover segments; statutory text, definitions, and harmonization support TSA’s reading |
| Whether TSA’s interpretation violates Congress’s aims of simplifying and uniform fees | Airlines: TSA’s approach causes disparate treatment of similarly situated passengers | TSA: Its rule aligns fee imposition with beneficiaries of security services and fits statutory scheme | Court: Disparate effects exist but are unavoidable; TSA’s interpretation is reasonable under Chevron and consistent with statutory purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Branton v. FCC, 993 F.2d 906 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (economic incidence can support injury for standing)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (self-evident injuries may require no extra-record evidence)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional questions must be resolved before merits)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (statutory interpretation favors harmonizing similar provisions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009) (an agency’s reasonable interpretation governs even if not the only permissible reading)