98 F.4th 1156
9th Cir.2024Background
- James Fejes operated a licensed marijuana cultivation facility in Alaska, where marijuana is legal under state law but remains a controlled substance under federal law.
- Fejes used his pilot certificate to transport marijuana by aircraft within Alaska, a state where air transport is often necessary due to geography.
- The Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office investigated Fejes for reporting false transport information and notified the FAA about his use of aircraft for marijuana transportation.
- The FAA revoked Fejes’s pilot certificate under 49 U.S.C. § 44710(b)(2), which mandates revocation when an aircraft is knowingly used to facilitate an activity punishable by over a year’s imprisonment under federal or state controlled substance law.
- Fejes appealed the revocation to the NTSB, which affirmed the FAA's decision; this court review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA Jurisdiction under Commerce Clause | FAA cannot regulate purely intrastate transport | Airspace and aircraft are channels/instrumentalities of interstate commerce | FAA has jurisdiction; can regulate intrastate aviation activities |
| Applicability of FAA Regulation Exception (14 C.F.R. § 91.19(b)) | Exception applies because Alaska law authorizes marijuana transport | FAA acted under § 44710(b)(2), not § 91.19; regulation exception irrelevant | Exception does not apply; revocation proper under statute |
| Need for Criminal Conviction | Certificate revocation requires prior conviction | Statute only requires conduct to be "punishable," not conviction | No conviction required; revocation valid |
| Knowledge Requirement for Punishment | Must know conduct is punishable under federal law | Only need to knowingly engage in activity; knowledge of law not required | No requirement for knowledge of punishability under law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (scope of Commerce Clause regulation over channels and instrumentalities)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (even local marijuana activities can have substantial effect on interstate commerce)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (knowledge means factual, not legal, knowledge)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (Commerce Clause limitations do not bar regulating national airspace for intrastate acts)
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (state marijuana law does not override federal prohibition)
- United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020 (state legalization does not prevent federal enforcement)
- Connors v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 844 F.3d 1143 (conviction not necessary for certificate revocation for controlled substance activity)