957 F.3d 267
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- The Air Tour Management Act of 2000 requires the FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, to establish air tour management plans (or unanimous voluntary agreements) for commercial sightseeing flights when an operator applies, and to “make every effort” to act within two years.
- The Act permits interim operating authority for existing operators and allows voluntary agreements (which are not subject to full NEPA or notice-and-comment) but makes such agreements effective only if all operators holding interim authority join.
- FAA and NPS repeatedly clashed over responsibilities (safety vs. park resource protection), environmental analysis metrics, and procedures; as a result, after 19 years the agencies had completed management plans at only two parks and had not issued draft NEPA documents for most sites.
- Petitioners (environmental and visitor groups) sought a writ of mandamus to compel the FAA and NPS to complete management plans or voluntary agreements at specified parks; an earlier filing was dismissed for lack of standing because it named only the FAA, but the renewed petition named both agencies.
- The agencies proposed a partial multi-year schedule covering some parks but not all outstanding parks; the court found that partial plan insufficient and that the agencies’ nineteen-year delay was unreasonable.
- The D.C. Circuit granted mandamus: it ordered the agencies to submit, within 120 days, a schedule to bring all outstanding parks into compliance (Congress expected completion within two years), retained jurisdiction to approve and monitor the plan, and required progress updates every 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear mandamus challenging agency delay | Court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction under statutory review provisions and the All Writs Act | — (agencies did not successfully contest jurisdiction) | D.C. Cir. has jurisdiction to hear the mandamus petition. |
| Associational standing | Petitioners’ members suffer cognizable recreational/aesthetic injury from overflight noise; injury is traceable and redressable | Agencies argued relief uncertain and earlier petition lacked proper respondents | Association satisfied standing elements; injuries are redressable by compeling plans/agreements. |
| Duty to act (mandatory vs. discretionary) | Statute commands agencies to establish plans/agreements when an application is filed; creation (decision to act) is nondiscretionary even if plan content is discretionary | Agencies argued environmental judgments and plan content are discretionary so no clear duty to compel | Court: creation of plans/agreements is a statutory duty the agencies must perform; mandamus may compel timely decisions. |
| Unreasonable delay under TRAC | Nineteen-year delay versus statutory two-year objective is egregious; mandamus warranted to produce timetable and prompt action | Agencies cited complexity, interagency dispute, resource limits, and their new partial schedule | Applying TRAC, delay is unreasonable; court granted mandamus and ordered a comprehensive schedule within 120 days, retaining oversight and requiring 90‑day progress reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (formulates six-factor TRAC test for unreasonable agency delay)
- In re Bluewater Network, 234 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (mandamus is extraordinary but available for clear statutory duty and unreasonable delay)
- In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of agency delay measured in weeks or months, not years)
- Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (lack of a rigid statutory deadline does not permit indefinite agency inaction)
- In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (time is the most important TRAC factor)
- In re United Mine Workers of Am. Int’l Union, 190 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (ordering agency to produce schedule and retaining jurisdiction)
- In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (court will not grant relief that merely puts one petitioner ahead at expense of others)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 750 F.2d 81 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (each mandamus case evaluated on unique circumstances)