Burdue v. Federal Aviation Administration
774 F.3d 1076
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bradley J. Burdue was a designated Airworthiness Representative–Maintenance (DAR‑T) who received annual renewals from the FAA but whose designation was revoked on April 29, 2013.
- The FAA’s Special Emphasis Investigations Team (SEIT) found Burdue conducted unauthorized inspections outside his area and issued export certificates for aircraft owned by him and his wife; SEIT produced a memorandum with 13 items of proof.
- Burdue submitted a detailed response and a 17‑page appeal; an untimely supplement (from FOIA documents) was later provided to the appeal panel. The FAA appeal panel upheld the revocation.
- Burdue filed a Bivens action in district court alleging Fifth Amendment due‑process violations and wrongful termination; the district court stayed that case pending resolution of this petition for review.
- Burdue petitioned this court under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 to review the FAA’s revocation order; he also moved to supplement the administrative record (denied as moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA revocation is an “order” reviewable under § 46110 | Burdue: revocation is final agency action and fits § 46110 review | FAA: revocation is an order but discretionary; exclusive review in court of appeals applies | Held: revocation is a final “order” and § 46110 applies (court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction) |
| Whether the court can review the merits under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) | Burdue: FAA’s action arbitrary, reviewable under APA | FAA: § 44702(d)(2) gives Administrator unfettered discretion; committed to agency discretion by law | Held: merits are committed to agency discretion; § 701(a)(2) bars APA review of substantive revocation decision |
| Whether constitutional (due‑process) claims can be reviewed and where | Burdue: § 46110 should not bar district‑court Bivens damages and due‑process claims | FAA: § 46110 consolidates review in courts of appeals; constitutional claims may be inextricably intertwined | Held: Broad constitutional challenges and damages claims are properly brought in district court (Bivens) because they are not inescapably intertwined with review of the FAA order |
| Whether additional fact‑development or supplementation of record is warranted on appeal | Burdue: appeal panel lacked full record; supplement and further factfinding needed | FAA: administrative record suffices for any appellate review | Held: appeal denied on merits jurisdictional ground; motion to supplement record denied as moot; district court is proper forum for factual development on constitutional claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (describing narrow § 701(a)(2) exception where no law to apply)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (statute committing decisions to agency discretion forecloses judicial review)
- Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (§ 44702(d)(2) commits rescission/nonrenewal to FAA discretion)
- Adams v. FAA, 1 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1993) (FAA nonrenewal decision not judicially reviewable under § 44702 predecessor)
- Joelson v. United States, 86 F.3d 1413 (6th Cir. 1996) (broad statutory discretion precludes judicial review of removal)
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (district courts may hear broad collateral constitutional challenges where appellate review is inadequate)
- Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514 (11th Cir. 1993) (Bivens challenge not allowed where inescapably intertwined with appellate review of FAA order)