SPC court ruling
12-31-2008, 06:51 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 53
SPC court ruling
On December 19th the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down a decision in favor of the FAA in the Senior Pilot’s Coalition’s (SPC) challenge to the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. This despite some very compelling arguments by the SPC to support their belief that certain provisions in the age 65 law were unconstitutional. I awaited comment from our lead attorney, before informing you of our opinion regarding any impact this decision might have on our CAP. The following are Tony’s comments:
Statement re: Adams v. FAA
A recent decision of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. implies a potential note of encouragement for our case, which is pending in federal court in San Francisco.
On December 19, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the case of Adams v. FAA, in which several Part 121 pilots had appealed from the FAA's denial of their petitions for exemption from the age 60 rule. The petitioners in that case had turned 60 before December 13, 2007 when the non-retroactive statute, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, changed the age cutoff to 65. They based their appeal on arguments that the non-retroactive feature of the Act is unconstitutional as a violation of due process and equal protection and as a "bill of attainder."
In dismissing the Adams case, the D.C. Circuit pointed out that the petitioners brought their constitutional claims to the wrong court. It is true that an FAA order for exemptions is properly appealed directly to a Circuit Court of Appeals. However, a constitutional challenge to a statute must be initiated as an action in U.S. District Court.
Because the Adams petitioners went to the wrong court to challenge the statute, the judges did not rule on the merits of their constitutional arguments but simply dismissed their case on jurisdictional grounds.
Statement re: Adams v. FAA
A recent decision of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. implies a potential note of encouragement for our case, which is pending in federal court in San Francisco.
On December 19, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the case of Adams v. FAA, in which several Part 121 pilots had appealed from the FAA's denial of their petitions for exemption from the age 60 rule. The petitioners in that case had turned 60 before December 13, 2007 when the non-retroactive statute, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, changed the age cutoff to 65. They based their appeal on arguments that the non-retroactive feature of the Act is unconstitutional as a violation of due process and equal protection and as a "bill of attainder."
In dismissing the Adams case, the D.C. Circuit pointed out that the petitioners brought their constitutional claims to the wrong court. It is true that an FAA order for exemptions is properly appealed directly to a Circuit Court of Appeals. However, a constitutional challenge to a statute must be initiated as an action in U.S. District Court.
Because the Adams petitioners went to the wrong court to challenge the statute, the judges did not rule on the merits of their constitutional arguments but simply dismissed their case on jurisdictional grounds.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
