FEJES V. FAA, No. 22-70129 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves James Fejes, a pilot who held a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 49 U.S.C. § 44703. Fejes used his aircraft to transport and distribute marijuana to retail stores within Alaska, an activity that is legal under state law but illegal under federal law. After an investigation, the FAA revoked Fejes's pilot certificate under 49 U.S.C. § 44710(b)(2), which mandates revocation when a pilot knowingly uses an aircraft for an activity punishable by more than a year's imprisonment under a federal or state controlled substance law.
Fejes appealed the FAA's decision to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed the revocation. He then appealed the ALJ's decision to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which also affirmed the ALJ. Throughout the agency proceedings, Fejes admitted that he piloted an aircraft to distribute marijuana within Alaska, but argued that his conduct fell outside of § 44710(b)(2)'s reach.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Fejes's petition for review of the NTSB's order affirming the FAA's revocation of his pilot certificate. The court rejected Fejes's argument that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to revoke his pilot certificate because Congress cannot authorize an administrative agency to regulate purely intrastate commerce like marijuana delivery within Alaska. The court held that airspace is a channel of commerce squarely within congressional authority, and therefore, Congress can regulate Fejes's conduct. The court also rejected Fejes's argument that his conduct was exempt under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, and that the FAA misinterpreted § 44710(b)(2). The court concluded that the FAA's revocation of Fejes's pilot certificate was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Court Description: Federal Aviation Administration. The panel denied James Fejes’s petition for review of the National Transportation Safety Board’s order affirming the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)’s revocation of his pilot certificate under 49 U.S.C. § 44710(b)(2).
Fejes held a pilot certificate issued by the FAA under 49 U.S.C. § 44703, and at least three times piloted an aircraft to transport and distribute marijuana to retail stores within Alaska. Fejes argued that his conduct fell outside of § 44710(b)(2)’s reach.
The panel rejected Fejes’s argument that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to revoke his pilot certificate because Congress cannot authorize an administrative agency to regulate purely intrastate commerce like marijuana delivery within Alaska. Airspace is a channel of commerce squarely within congressional authority. Therefore, Congress can regulate Fejes’s conduct, which involved use of a navigable airspace, as a channel of interstate commerce. Aircraft are also instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
The panel also rejected Fejes’s argument that his conduct was exempt under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19. The FAA did not rely on 14 C.F.R. § 91.19 to revoke Fejes’s pilot certificate, and the FAA need not comply with an exception to a regulatory prohibition when it did not allege any regulatory violation occurred. Finally, the panel rejected Fejes’s argument that the FAA misinterpreted § 44710(b)(2). First, the panel held that § 44710(b)(2) was mandatory, as evident from the plain text, and the FAA did not exceed its statutory power by revoking Fejes’s pilot certificate. Second, a criminal conviction is unnecessary for a certificate revocation under § 44710(b)(2). Section 44710(b)(2) does not require a finding that Fejes knew that his conduct was “punishable” under law, but only that he knowingly engaged in activity that was punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841. Fejes admitted that he knowingly piloted an aircraft to distribute marijuana within Alaska. State law legalizing marijuana distribution did not negate federal law criminalizing the same action.
Accordingly, the panel concluded that the FAA’s revocation of Fejes’s pilot certificate was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.