Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States Department of Transportation
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14558
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Love Field in Dallas: historically restricted by the Wright Amendment; Wright Amendment Reform Act (WARA) (2006) removed geographic limits and capped gates at 20 (Southwest leases 16).
- Accommodation: process allowing non-tenant airlines to use tenant gates voluntarily or by forced accommodation per Love Field gate leases and the City’s competition plan (and WARA’s command to honor the scarce-resource provision).
- December 17, 2014 DOT letter to the City provided guidance on forced accommodation (snapshot date gate usage; accommodated carrier entitled to ongoing similar pattern of service while operating those flights).
- Delta requested accommodation to operate from Love Field; City invoked forced-accommodation process in leases; City sought DOT guidance; DOT sent the December letter.
- DOT later initiated an FAA Part 16 administrative investigation (Aug. 7, 2015) into the City’s compliance; the Notice of Investigation said the December 17 letter was guidance and not a definitive resolution and invited interested parties (including Southwest and Delta) to participate.
- Southwest petitioned for judicial review of the December 17 letter, arguing it was a final agency action and an unlawful legislative rule (APA § 553). The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the letter was not final agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOT’s Dec. 17 guidance letter is a "final agency action" subject to judicial review | The letter fixed rights/obligations (snapshot-date rule and ongoing accommodation), so it consummated agency decisionmaking and is reviewable under Bennett | The letter was guidance only; DOT later opened a Part 16 proceeding and explicitly treated the letter as non-final, so no consummation | Not final: DOT’s Part 16 investigation and explicit statements show decisionmaking was not consummated, so petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the guidance constituted a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment under the APA | The letter set binding policy affecting lease rights and thus required prior notice-and-comment | Because the letter was not final agency action, the APA rulemaking claim is premature | Court did not reach merits of rulemaking claim—dismissed as unnecessary because letter is non-final |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Bennett two‑part finality test)
- U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (subsequent agency treatment informs finality)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (agency action must be consummated to be final)
- Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243 (guidance non-final where agency didn’t treat it as binding)
- Amerijet Int’l, Inc. v. Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343 (finality analysis and subsequent agency conduct)
- Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999 (consideration of agency statements in finality inquiry)
- Holistic Candlers & Consumers Ass’n v. FDA, 664 F.3d 940 (guidance vs. final agency action)
- SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. TSA, 769 F.3d 1184 (definition of "order" and finality under 49 U.S.C. § 46110)
- City of Dallas v. Southwest Airlines Co., 371 F. Supp. 1015 (N.D. Tex. decision regarding Southwest’s intrastate operations)
- City of Dallas v. Southwest Airlines Co., 494 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. affirmation)