Amerijet International, Inc. v. John Pistole
410 U.S. App. D.C. 176
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Amerijet, an all-cargo airline with a TSA‑approved security program, sought agency approval for several alternative screening procedures to comply with TSA Security Directive No. 1544-11-04 (issued after a 2010 cargo‑borne explosives incident).
- Amerijet previously obtained a limited alternate procedure in 2011 (enhanced physical search) that included TSA‑specified training; that approval expired in October 2013 while Amerijet sought amendments.
- Amerijet submitted a February 2013 application (four requested alternatives) and an August 2013 application (three alternatives and clarifications). TSA denied the February requests by a May 2013 letter, gave an oral tentative denial in a November 2013 videoconference, and issued a January 2014 letter denying remaining August requests (with a limited approval for perishable cargo at one foreign location).
- Amerijet filed three consolidated petitions for review in this court challenging the May letter, the oral November denial, and the January letter; the court found the oral denial non‑final and dismissed that petition.
- The court held that most of TSA’s written denials lacked adequate explanation (arbitrary and capricious), remanded for further explanation or reconsideration, sustained TSA’s partial approval for perishables at one location, dismissed as moot Amerijet’s proposed amendment to expired training protocols, and dismissed Amerijet’s equal protection claim without prejudice as unripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSA provided reasoned explanation for denying Amerijet’s proposed alternate procedures | Amerijet: TSA gave "no explanation" and lacked facts/support for denials; decision arbitrary and capricious | TSA: Denials were discretionary; Amerijet bore burden to show alternatives provide commensurate security; some denials reflected insufficient applicant info | Court: May letter and most January denials insufficiently explained; remand for additional explanation except for one adequately explained partial approval and one moot request |
| Whether the oral November videoconference denial is reviewable final agency action | Amerijet: Sought review of oral denial | TSA: Oral statement was tentative, not final | Held: Oral denial non‑final; petition dismissed for lack of finality |
| Whether proposed amendment to 2011 training protocols is justiciable | Amerijet: Sought amendment to approved alternate procedure | TSA: Alternate had expired during pendency | Held: Moot — amendment request concerned an expired document; dismissed |
| Whether Amerijet’s equal protection claim may be adjudicated now | Amerijet: Alleges TSA favored competitor and denied Amerijet’s alternatives | TSA: Remand may change the factual/legal posture; claim premature | Held: Dismissed without prejudice as unripe pending further agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency must provide a statement of reasoning for denials; conclusory explanations are arbitrary)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (proper remedy for inadequate agency explanation is remand for further investigation or explanation)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (final agency action standard: consummation plus legal consequences)
- Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. TSA, 716 F.3d 679 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (deference to TSA’s interpretations of security programs and standards of review)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (court may uphold an agency decision if the agency’s path can reasonably be discerned)
- Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency explanations must be reasons, not conclusions)