631 F.3d 550
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- SMO is a single-runway public airport owned/operated by Santa Monica with no scheduled passenger service, serving general aviation and acting as a reliever for LAX.
- Category A/B aircraft operate at SMO; Category C/D are largely business jets and comprise ~7% of operations.
- 1984 Agreement commits SMO to be open for public use on fair, reasonable terms without unjust discrimination; FAA retains exclusive safety regulation authority.
- Grant Assurance 22 requires SMO to be available to all aeronautical uses on fair/ reasonable terms without unjust discrimination, with a safety exception.
- Grant agreements incorporated into FAA Airport Improvement Program grants—assurances survive for the facility’s useful life (up to 20 years from grant funds), current as of 2015/2023 dispute.
- In 2002–2008 Santa Monica pursued a revised Aircraft Conformance Program; in 2008 Santa Monica enacted Ordinance 10.04.06.220 banning Category C/D aircraft except for emergencies; FAA issued a cease-and-desist and began administrative review leading to a final decision in 2009 finding the Ordinance inconsistent with grant assurance 22 and preempted by federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA’s decision was arbitrary or capricious on grant assurance 22. | Santa Monica argues FAA ignored evidence, contradicted its policies, and failed to tie evidence to the decision. | FAA argues its findings are supported by substantial evidence and present a rational connection between facts and conclusions. | FAA’s decision affirmed; not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether grant assurance 22 preempts the Ordinance. | Santa Monica contends the Ordinance is allowed under state/local police power. | FAA relies on federal supremacy and exclusive aviation-safety authority to preempt the Ordinance. | Court declines to reach preemption, citing not to decide constitutional questions when other grounds exist. |
| Whether the Ordinance is unjustly discriminatory and not necessary for safety. | Ordinance is necessary to ensure safety and protect neighborhood interests. | Ordinance discriminates against Category C/D without proper necessity; alternatives exist (EMAS) that preserve airport utility. | Ordinance unjustly discriminatory and not necessary; inconsistent with grant assurance 22. |
Key Cases Cited
- D & F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (substantial-evidence review under APA; deference to agency findings)
- Boca Airport, Inc. v. F.A.A., 389 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary-and-capricious review; agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must provide a rational connection; highly deferential standard of review)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1974) (agency decisions upheld if path reasonably discernible even if unclear)
- Int'l Fabricare Inst. v. U.S. E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (APA review; courts defer to agency expertise when record supports)
- Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 764 F.2d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (avoid constitutional rulings when case can be decided on other grounds)