National Federation of the Blind v. United States Department of Transportation
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11745
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- DOT issued a Final Rule (Nov. 12, 2013; effective Dec. 12, 2013) requiring certain carriers to purchase blind‑accessible ticketing kiosks until at least 25% of kiosks at covered airports are accessible, with a three‑year delayed compliance start.
- National Federation of the Blind (NFB) sued DOT in district court under the APA (Jan. 22, 2014), challenging the 25% threshold and the grace period as violating the Air Carrier Access Act and arbitrary and capricious.
- The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit over DOT “orders,” and it treated the Final Rule as such; rather than dismissing, the court transferred the case to the D.C. Circuit.
- NFB’s complaint was filed 71 days after the Final Rule issuance, missing the 60‑day filing deadline in § 46110(a); NFB argued the late filing should be excused for reasonable grounds (forum confusion).
- The D.C. Circuit (per C.J. Henderson) held that § 46110(a)’s reference to an “order” includes agency rulemakings, so the district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction; it further held NFB’s late filing was not excused because forum confusion and statutory disagreement do not constitute reasonable grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46110(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the court of appeals over DOT rulemakings | NFB: “order” should be read with the APA definition (excluding rulemaking); district court is the usual forum for rule challenges | DOT: “order” in § 46110(a) includes rules; direct‑review statutes encompass rulemakings | Held: § 46110(a) includes rulemakings; D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction | NFB: district court erred and mandamus should issue | DOT: district court was correct under precedent and NYRSC | Held: No error; mandamus denied |
| Whether NFB’s filing was timely or excusable despite being filed after 60 days | NFB: confusion over proper forum provides reasonable grounds to excuse tardiness | DOT: no reasonable grounds; plaintiffs should have filed in court of appeals or both fora | Held: Filing untimely and not excused; petition dismissed |
| Whether court should reach merits despite procedural defects | NFB: transfer and statutory arguments warrant merits review | DOT: procedural jurisdictional limits foreclose merits | Held: Court did not reach merits; dismissed for lack of timely jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (mandamus threshold; district court legal error question)
- SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. TSA, 769 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discusses finality requirement for § 46110(a) review)
- New York Republican State Comm. v. SEC, 799 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (direct‑review statutes’ “order” includes rulemakings)
- Investment Co. Institute v. Bd. of Governors, 551 F.2d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (historic presumption that ‘‘order’’ for direct review encompasses agency actions reviewable on administrative record)
- Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finality of FAA advisory circular and reasonable‑grounds excuse context)
- Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (distinguishes agency sovereign rulemaking from agency litigation posture)
- National Mining Ass’n v. DOL, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (limited review provision tied to adjudicatory body; distinguishable)
- Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 752 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (reasonable‑grounds excuse where agency left rulemaking docket open)
- Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (delay caused by filing in wrong court generally not reasonable grounds)
- Corbett v. TSA, 767 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2014) (similar rule that pursuing suit in wrong forum does not excuse late filing)