Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Quesada
276 F.2d 892, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4768, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2022 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency may promulgate a regulation of general applicability that affects the rights of a class of license holders through informal rule-making procedures, without being required to provide an individual adjudicatory hearing for each affected person.
Facts:
- The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 empowered the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to create rules to promote air safety.
- In 1958, the FAA Administrator, Elwood R. Quesada, initiated a study of the aging process and its effects on pilot capabilities, consulting with aviation medical experts and reviewing policies of foreign airlines.
- The study concluded that the risk of sudden incapacitation from events like heart attacks or strokes increases as pilots approach age 60, and that it is medically difficult to predict such events in specific individuals.
- In June 1959, the FAA published a proposed regulation prohibiting pilots from serving in commercial operations after reaching age 60 and invited public comment.
- On December 1, 1959, after reviewing public comments, Administrator Quesada promulgated the final regulation, making it effective March 15, 1960.
- The regulation affected the licenses of over 18,000 commercial pilots, including 35 pilots who were plaintiffs in the resulting lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Thirty-five individual pilots, the Air Line Pilots Association, and its president (plaintiffs) filed suit against Elwood R. Quesada, Administrator of the FAA (defendant), in a federal district court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the 'Age 60 Rule' was invalid and requested an injunction against its application.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the district court.
- The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal regulation of general applicability, which prospectively modifies the certificates of an entire class of airmen for safety reasons, require the administrative agency to provide individual adjudicatory hearings under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Aviation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, Chief Judge.
No, a regulation of general applicability does not require individual adjudicatory hearings. The promulgation of the age sixty limitation was a valid exercise of the Administrator's rule-making authority, not an adjudication. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines a 'rule' as an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which perfectly describes the challenged regulation as it applies to all 18,000 commercial pilots prospectively. This action is the 'very antithesis of adjudication,' which involves applying existing standards to a specific individual's past conduct. While the rule modifies pilots' property rights in their licenses, due process does not require an individual hearing for legislative-type actions that affect a large group, as established in Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization. Furthermore, § 609 of the Federal Aviation Act, which mandates individual hearings, applies only to orders directed at a specific airman based on 'charges' or facts peculiar to that individual, not to general safety regulations issued under the broad authority of § 601. Requiring thousands of individual hearings would create an intolerable burden and undermine Congress's intent to enable swift, efficient safety rule-making.
Analysis:
This case provides a foundational distinction in administrative law between rule-making and adjudication. It affirms that an agency's legislative-like function of creating general, forward-looking rules does not trigger the same procedural due process rights (like individual hearings) as its judicial-like function of applying rules to specific individuals. The decision solidifies agency power to regulate industries efficiently in the public interest, particularly in matters of safety, even when such regulations significantly impact the property or contract rights of a large class of people. This precedent limits the scope of due process challenges to general regulations, requiring only that the rule-making process itself be fair and the resulting rule be reasonable, not that every affected individual get a personal hearing.
Unlock the full brief for Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Quesada