# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386009_0691%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 2002 - **Citation:** 534 U.S. 1127 ## Text (\)) Seprene Court. us. 01 652 OCT 17 2001 In The Supreme Court of the United States + CUSTER COUNTY ACTION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL AIRSPACE COALITION; THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; CUSTER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTER COUNTY, COLORADO; LA VETA PEACE OF AIR ALLIANCE; HUERFANO VALLEY CITIZENS ALLIANCE; WOLF SPRINGS RANCHES, INC.; AND CUSTER COUNTY BISON, Petitioners, V. JANE F. GARVEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR., AS DIRECTOR OF THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD, Respondents. ¢ On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit * PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 4 BriAN B. O’NEILL Counsel of Record for Petitioners FagGRE & Benson LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether the Tenth Circuit properly set aside the Fed- eral Aviation Act provisioris for judicial review of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) decisions allocating navigable airspace for military use on the grounds that the political question doctrine precludes the federal courts from “second-guessing” FAA decisions. II. Whether the FAA and the Tenth Circuit can exempt the FAA from the Federal Aviation Act requirement that the FAA make specific, written and reasonable findings that airspace is necessary in the interest of national defense before allocating that airspace for military use. III. Whether the National Environmental Policy Act required the FAA and the Air National Guard (“ANG”) to broaden the scope of the Environmental Impact State- ment for the Colorado Airspace Initiative (“CAI”) to con- sider the environmental impact of the nationwide proliferation of military airspace. IV. Whether the Third Amendment prohibits the mili- tary from occupying non-navigable airspace over private property during peacetime without the owner’s consent. nn aN Sanna ii LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Petitioners are Custer County Action Association; National Airspace Coalition; The Wilderness Society; Custer County Airport Authority; The Board of County Commissioners of Custer County, Colorado; La Veta Peace of Air Alliance; Huerfano Valley Citizens Alliance; Wolf Springs Ranches, Inc.; and Custer County Bison. None of the Petitioners have parent companies and no publicly held company has any financial interest in any of the Petitioners. Respondents are Jane F. Garvey, as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and United States Air Force Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr., as Director of the Air National Guard, and both were sued in their official capacities only. iil TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......---- i LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .....--ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........000seeeeeeeeeeees vi OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW ......----+++++: 1 JURISDICTION .........0cseeeeeeee eee eeee ee ee eee 1 CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND REGULA- TORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......---++05509 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....--.--+00eeee eee 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .....------ 6 I. WHETHER FAA DECISIONS REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF NAVIGABLE AIR- SPACE FOR MILITARY USE ARE IMMUNE FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AN IMPOR- TANT FEDERAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT .......------- 8 A. The Tenth Circuit Improperly Expanded The Political Question Doctrine When It Refused To Review The FAA’s Decision To Establish The Colorado Airspace Initiative Pursuant To 49 U.S.C. § 46110 And 5 U.S.C. § 706 On The Grounds That The FAA’s Decision Was Akin To Military B. The Tenth Circuit’s Refusal To Review FAA Decisions Allocating Military Airspace Allows Arbitrary Decisions Unsupported By Substantial Evidence To Stand........----- 12 ii em | iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page II. WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS CAN EXEMPT THE FAA FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT REQUIREMENT THAT THE FAA MAKE A SPECIFIC FINDING OF NECESSITY BEFORE IT ALLOCATES AIRSPACE FOR MILITARY USE IS AN IMPORTANT FED- ERAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE SET- Bae DE TEES COIR oc caeectctncicsaavncsr 13 A. The Federal Aviation Act Provides That The FAA Cannot Establish Any Airspace For Military Use Without An Initial Deter- mination That The Airspace In Question Is Necessary In The Interest Of National CDs oo oo. 0 6 ccdnveetaeeaid ees astivenrs 13 1. The FAA Cannot Exempt Its Own Actions From A Congressional Man- date Through The Use Of Administra- tive Classifications Of Special Use Ferrer TET oe ET Te Core 15 2. Federal Courts Cannot Exempt The FAA From The Federal Aviation Act Requirement That It Make A Specific Written Finding That The Proposed Military Airspace Is Necessary In The Interest Of National Defense......... 18 B. The Tenth Circuit’s Holding That The FAA Did Not Have To Make An Objectively Reasonable Specific Finding Of Necessity Conflicts With Prior Decisions Of This UNG ons so bas ced Re RR Ra Oe APA pees Knees 19 Vv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page III. WHETHER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMEN- TAL POLICY ACT (“NEPA”) REQUIRED THE FAA AND THE ANG TO CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE NATIONWIDE PROLIFERATION OF MILI- TARY AIRSPACE IS AN IMPORTANT FED- ERAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT.........----+++++ 22 IV. WHETHER THE THIRD AMENDMENT PRO- HIBITS THE MILITARY FROM OCCUPYING NON-NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE OVER PRI- VATE PROPERTY DURING PEACETIME WITHOUT THE OWNER’S CONSENT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF CONSTITU- TIONAL LAW... ..ccccccccccccccccccceeseoes 26 COPMCTAIOIOIN 0 cocci pcccccnctpctscvoventaracecsees 30 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES _ Arnhold v. United States, No. 88-0934C(3), 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17904 (E.D. Mo. June 13, 1989) ....... 30 Brown v. United States, 73 F.3d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .... 27 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Connect; inc., 467 US. Gar CBG G sc ice i ehesaekecss 16 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. tv. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)...... 15, 20, 21 Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024 CRUE Sah OSE i oes ices Poevaceweestassdareesedss 1 D & F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191 eae sR rE er re eae ee ere 21 Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975) overruled in part on other grounds, Local No. 82 v. Crowley, ET) SR ie emery ie 9 Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982)..... 27, 29 Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)............... Per Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) ........ 18 Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) ............ 22 Kyllo v. United States, 121 S. Ct. 2038 (2001)......... 29 Laird @ Tatum, 000 US. 1. (1998)... .ccccnccssss sees: 27 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d | Uk eS Re aire ae ee 25, 26 NORML v. Mullen, 608 F. Supp. 945 (N.D. Cal. RE re re ran ern te eee ee i eae er eae 29 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. FAA, 998 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1993)........-seeeee eee eeeeeees 5 National Wildlife Fed’n v. Appalachian Regional - Comm'n, 677 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1981).....-.--. 23, 25 Park N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) .......---eeeeeee esc cnepiaeana dawienans 15 Southern Cal. Aerial Advertisers’ Ass n 0. FAA, 881 ; F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1989).....-..ee reer cere eereeeee 18 United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) .... 12 United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)......---- 27 U.S. CoNsTITUTION AND FEDERAL STATUTES U.S. Const. amend. IIIT ......---.+- seer eeeeeee 1, 26, 29 5 US.C. § 553(a)(1)... eee eee eee e eee e trees 2, 11 5 US.C. § 706......ecececcccrecesccccceccececes 2, 8, 9 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) «--- eee eee eee e eee etree 12, 21 2B U-S.C. § 1254(1) ....-ceeecccccrencecerccererercers 1 A2 US.C. § 4332...... 0c eee e cece ee eceecerceccecces 2, 22 49 U.S.C. § 106(c)-(d) .. 1... eee rece e reer e renee eees : am 49 U:S.C. § 40102(a)(30)...... eee reer rere eerie 2, 28 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b) ....-- eee e eee eee eee 2, 6, 8, 28 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(3)...--- eee eee eee rere rere passim 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(4).. 0-0. ee eee rere rere reece 6, 11 49 US.C. § 44103(b)(2)....-.eceeeereeee eee eee eees 2,9 Vili TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Page GP UBAK SG GRR ore oes envsicisecss eo 16, 14 1 oe Cae FO rrr errr rrr ee 2 3, @, 33, 12 OURE. § MUI 6 oGiciiic inc Be |e LEGISLATIVE History Statements of Dr. Leslie A. Bryan and A.B. McMullen: The Federal Aviation Act: Hearing on H.R. 12616 Before the House Subcomm. On Trans- portation and Commerce of the Comm. On Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong. 167-68, PE CA a 10s bad Oa an pia en rae ck 0 0F bse ee 10 H.R. Conference Report No. 2556 (1958), reprinted i BS Fad am Se rere r eerie Peer 10 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 56 ER Ph ea eae Ve S ek cds ccc rede senteei ens 2 Be Re ie Po ob ns cee dvees Veterizibents 2, 28 SP Ge He RO hr oa cb evinikednveds tiiecseeer ese 22 GD CAE. & TaD cn PrsvcvsweceedceseusieVeeas’ 2 GS CER: © SCRE) oo oc vcs cee cind inde 23, 24 PAA: Code FOGG GED. oo é.> Ledead elit 2) —. —