Amerijet International, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security
43 F. Supp. 3d 4
D.D.C.2014Background
- Amerijet sues under the APA, the Fifth Amendment, and Declaratory Judgment Act against DHS, TSA, and Pistole for alleged pattern or practice of TSA security screening enforcement on all-cargo aircraft.
- The TSA issued Security Directive 1544-11-04 after a 2010 Yemen plot, imposing additional screening with exemptions for certain cargo.
- Amerijet is a full all-cargo operator required to follow the TSA-approved FACAOSSP; it contends it is exempt from the Directive’s requirements.
- The TSA has conducted inspections, issued notices of investigation and proposed penalties, and denied Amerijet’s requests for alternate procedures and exemptions.
- Amerijet filed suit in Sep 2013 seeking declaratory relief and an injunction; Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a).
- The court concluded it lacks jurisdiction and granted dismissal but transferred the case to the D.C. Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Security Directive is a final order under §46110(a). | Amerijet contends the Directive is not an order reviewable here. | Defendants contend the Directive is a final order reviewable in the courts of appeals. | Yes, the Directive is a final order. |
| Whether Amerijet’s claims are inescapably intertwined with review of the Security Directive, stripping district court jurisdiction. | Amerijet argues its claims are broader challenges not limited to review of the Directive. | Defendants argue the claims are inescapably intertwined with the Directive’s interpretation/enforcement. | Yes, claims are inescapably intertwined with the Directive; district court lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether §46110(a) precludes review of Amerijet’s broader constitutional/APA claims or only direct challenges to the Directive. | Amerijet asserts §46110(a) does not apply because it challenges procedures, not an order. | §46110(a) governs review of final TSA orders; broad challenges fall within its scope when intertwined. | §46110(a) governs review; the claims fall within its exclusive scope. |
| Whether the court should transfer under §1631 or dismiss. | Amerijet suggested transfer to the D.C. Circuit; not formally moved. | Dismissal is proper when jurisdiction is lacking; transfer discretionary but appropriate here. | Transfer to the D.C. Circuit is appropriate; dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (final order under §46110(a) requires rights or obligations and legal consequences)
- Village of Bensenville v. FAA, 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (consummation of agency decisionmaking; immediate effect and consequences)
- Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) (inescapable intertwining of constitutional claims with TSA order review)
- City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no-fly/no-penalty context; review of order-related standards)
- Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (statutory review structure; plain-text exclusive review in courts of appeals)