John Taylor v. Michael Huerta
856 F.3d 1089, 2017 WL 2192935, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8790 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal agency may not promulgate a rule that is explicitly prohibited by the plain text of a statute passed by Congress. Policy considerations, such as public safety, cannot override a clear and unambiguous statutory command.
Facts:
- John Taylor is a hobbyist who operates model aircraft (drones) for recreational purposes near his home in the Washington, D.C. area.
- Historically, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had not interpreted general aircraft registration statutes to apply to model aircraft, instead issuing only voluntary operational guidelines.
- In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which included Section 336(a), stating the FAA 'may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.'
- In 2015, citing safety concerns, the FAA issued the 'Registration Rule,' which required owners of all small unmanned aircraft, including those operated for recreational purposes (model aircraft), to register with the agency.
- The Registration Rule established a new online registration process, imposed a $5 fee, and required owners to display a unique FAA-issued number on their aircraft, with non-compliance subject to civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment.
Procedural Posture:
- John Taylor, a model aircraft hobbyist, filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- In his petition, Taylor challenged the legality of the FAA's 2015 Registration Rule.
- Taylor also challenged a separate FAA notice, Advisory Circular 91-57A, on similar grounds.
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 the Federal Aviation Administration's 2015 Registration Rule, which requires owners of model aircraft to register with the agency, violate Section 336(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which prohibits the FAA from promulgating 'any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft'?
Opinions:
Majority - Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge
Yes. The FAA's 2015 Registration Rule violates Section 336(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act because it is a rule regarding model aircraft, which the statute explicitly forbids. The court found the statutory text to be unambiguous and dispositive. The court rejected the FAA's argument that the rule was merely a new enforcement policy for a pre-existing statute, holding that the Registration Rule created an entirely new regulatory regime with new requirements, fees, and penalties. The court also dismissed the FAA's policy argument that the rule promoted aviation safety, stating that policy considerations cannot override the clear text of a statute enacted by Congress.
Analysis:
This case is a straightforward but powerful application of statutory interpretation and administrative law, reinforcing the principle of legislative supremacy. It establishes that an agency cannot circumvent a clear, specific congressional prohibition on its rulemaking authority, even if it believes its actions align with its broader statutory mission, such as ensuring public safety. The decision signals to federal agencies that courts will strictly enforce statutory text that carves out exceptions to regulatory power. This precedent limits an agency's ability to reinterpret its authority in response to new technologies or policy concerns when Congress has explicitly spoken on the issue.
