Amy McNaught v. Billy Nolen, 76 F.4th 764

Amy McNaught, a pilot and flight instructor, was asked by the FAA (April 21, 2022) to produce pilot logbooks and training records; she was abroad and initially did not respond.
After follow-up contacts, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending her pilot certificate on July 14, 2022 for noncompliance; the suspension lasted 14 days.
McNaught returned to the U.S., provided the requested records, and the FAA terminated the suspension on July 28, 2022 and closed enforcement.
An NTSB ALJ nevertheless held a hearing (denying FAA’s motion to dismiss) and found the records request and suspension reasonable; McNaught appealed to the full NTSB.
The NTSB dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the ALJ’s decision, concluding it lacked jurisdiction; McNaught petitioned the Eighth Circuit for review under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44709(f) and 46110.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McNaught presented a justiciable case or controversy (standing vs mootness)	McNaught contends the appeal was not moot and she suffered injury warranting review	FAA argues McNaught lacks Article III standing because the 14‑day suspension caused no concrete injury	Court held McNaught lacked Article III standing at the time she filed; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the 14‑day suspension caused future employment injury	McNaught says PRD entry is an "automatic disqualification" for certain pilot jobs and will harm future hiring	FAA says harm is speculative and McNaught offered no particularized, imminent job‑application plans	Held: speculative future‑harm theory insufficient for standing
Whether listing in the Pilot Records Database (PRD) caused reputational injury	McNaught claims the PRD entry is a permanent stain and reputational harm	FAA notes PRD is not public, requires employer access and pilot consent for retrieval, so no dissemination	Held: no concrete reputational injury shown; PRD listing alone (without dissemination) does not confer standing
Whether ALJ procedural errors warrant review despite mootness/standing issues	McNaught urges review of ALJ errors and relief notwithstanding termination of suspension	FAA and NTSB treated the matter as moot and lacking jurisdiction; NTSB vacated ALJ decision	Held: court did not reach procedural merits because of lack of Article III standing; petition dismissed

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires a "concrete and particularized" injury)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (intangible harms recognized only with close common‑law analogs; dissemination can matter)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative future injuries insufficient for standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury must be actual or imminent; "some day" intentions inadequate)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing assessed at commencement of litigation)
Braitberg v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 836 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) (retention of information without dissemination typically not actionable reputational harm)
Auer v. Trans Union, LLC, 902 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2018) (naked assertions of reputational harm insufficient to establish injury)
Westmoreland v. NTSB, 833 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir. 1987) (temporary suspension's speculative future effects too uncertain to support standing)