Weaver v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
408 U.S. App. D.C. 361
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- In June 2011 Fred Weaver received a Montana misdemeanor citation for failing to stop at a weigh station; the state court later dismissed the charge (ambiguous whether as not guilty or deferred prosecution).
- The citation remained in the FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), a federal database used by motor-carrier employers for pre-employment screening.
- FMCSA provides a web-based dispute process (DataQs) but its rule gives states primary control over whether to amend data submitted to MCMIS and treats state determinations as final.
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association filed a DataQs request on Weaver’s behalf; Montana DOT denied it and refused to remove the record.
- Weaver (and the Association in a related district-court suit) sued seeking to compel FMCSA to remove or stop disseminating dismissed/overturned citations; jurisdictional allocation under the Hobbs Act was the central issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has Hobbs Act jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2342(3) | Weaver: FMCSA took reviewable action (including inaction) applying its SORN/DataQs policy, so review should be in district court or transferred there if required | Government: The claim is effectively an untimely challenge to an FMCSA rule/notice subject to the Hobbs Act’s 60-day limit; initial review belongs in the court of appeals | The court of appeals lacks § 2342(3) jurisdiction because FMCSA’s conduct was not a rule, regulation, or final order under that subsection; transfer to district court is appropriate |
| Whether FMCSA’s refusal to alter state-submitted MCMIS data is actionable federal agency action | Weaver: FMCSA’s policy of deferring to states converts Montana’s refusal into federal action and hence is reviewable | Government: FMCSA has no role; the real target is the prior rule/notice and any attack is untimely | Court: FMCSA’s conduct may constitute agency action (including inaction) but it is not the kind of rule/regulation/order covered by § 2342(3); such claims belong in district court |
| Whether a late facial challenge to the FMCSA Systems of Record Notice is barred | Weaver: Challenges to agency application of a rule remain available even if the rule itself was not timely attacked | Government: The Hobbs Act time bar precludes review if the claim is a disguised attack on the rule | Court: A facial/time-barred challenge to a rule is generally barred, but an aggrieved party may challenge an agency’s application of that rule when it conflicts with the statute; here review of FMCSA’s application belongs in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- National Tank Truck Carriers v. Fed. Highway Admin. of U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 170 F.3d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (states provide much MCMIS data and enforce FMCSA regs)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 666 F.2d 595 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (time limits on rule challenges can be jurisdictional)
- Functional Music, Inc. v. FCC, 274 F.2d 543 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (challenge to agency application of rule may be entertained despite failure to attack rule earlier)
- Murphy Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Interior, 270 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency application of rule can be challenged on statutory-consistency grounds)
- Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (refusal to comply with subpoena not readily characterized as an "order" for jurisdictional purposes)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (availability of an administrative record guides whether review should be in court of appeals)