Journal of Air Law and Commerce
Abstract
Judicial and legislative involvement in agency rulemaking is a relevant and particularly salient topic. The authority of an agency to make sound policy with flexibility and discretion often comes into conflict with the judiciary’s duty to prevent arbitrary regulations, which lack solid evidence or convincing rationale. Considering that more than three million passengers fly every day, it is no surprise that establishing a robust certification process for pilots is among the Federal Aviation Administration’s top priorities. The courts and the Legislature have also recently made notable strides to exert more control over the standards for medical certification. In July, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an agency rule regarding antidepressant medications for pilots was “arbitrary and capricious.” This signaled to the FAA that its approach is under scrutiny and served as a reminder that the agency’s decisions are not solely left up to its own discretion. Simultaneously, the Legislature has signaled a stronger interest in the issue by introducing new bills and key reforms regarding mental health disclosure and medication. A rigorous certification process is key to ensuring optimal safety for the millions of airline passengers flying every day, but a process rooted in arbitrary decisions or unsubstantiated scientific claims threatens the livelihood of thousands of airline pilots and runs the risk of encouraging them not to disclose concerning health conditions in the first place. These changes are also indicative of a growing willingness of the courts and the Legislature to involve themselves in the FAA’s rulemaking and adjudicatory processes.
Recommended Citation
Emily Ryter, Not Quite Fit to Fly: A Reflection on Due Process and Agency Rulemaking in the FAA’s Approach to Pilot Certification,
91
J. Air L. & Com.
417
(2026)
