Opinion ID: 904253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adams v. united states

Text: The approximately 200 Adams plaintiffs can be split into two classes: (1) pilots who turned 60 and were retired under the Age 60 Rule some months or years before the December 13, 2007, enactment date,4 and (2) pilots who turned 60 between December 1 and 12, 2007, but remained in the air carrier’s employ until December 31.5 Together they bring a veritable litany of constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claims against FTEPA’s nonretroactivity and protection-for-compliance provisions as well as FAA’s purportedly arbitrary and unlawful implementation of the two. See Adams Compl. ¶¶ 310–98. Although initially justiciable, the passage of time has called into question our ability to provide effective relief in this suit against the government. We turn to that threshold issue now.
An old axiom reminds us that time and tide wait for no 4 Curiously, the complaint also names pilots who were over 65 on December 13, 2007, Adams Compl. ¶ 17, as well as those who had not yet turned 60, Adams Compl. ¶¶ 52, 62. Whatever the explanation, we think it clear that these pilots are without standing to challenge a nonretroactivity provision that caused them no injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 5 This latter class includes George V. Emory and Lorenzo M. Sein, plaintiffs in the companion case. Adams Compl. ¶¶ 70, 188; Emory Compl. ¶¶ 12(d); 12(f). 7 man. Or pilot, we add. The window on the nonretroactivity provision closed December 13, 2012, the five-year anniversary of the Act’s enactment. On that date, every pilot for whom the prohibition against retroactivity (and the exemptions thereto) would have applied — pilots aged 60 to 64 the day FTEPA took effect — would have turned 65.6 We can now say with mathematical certainty that all members of this temporally circumscribed class are disqualified under the Age 65 Rule from ever piloting Part 121 flights.7 Restated, as of December 13, 2012, no pilot will ever be kept from — or allowed to return to — piloting Part 121 flights by operation of § 44729(e)(1). The government’s supplementary filing, submitted shortly after the five-year anniversary, urged us to dismiss the Adams appeal as moot. See Adams v. United States, No. 125026, Doc. No. 1410861 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 2012) (“Mootness Memo”). The government attacks Adams’s complaint for failing to allege any cognizable relief, explaining the case is moot “because the plaintiffs seek only equitable relief. Despite their scattered references to damages in their brief, damages are, of course, unavailable under the 6 Those who had not yet turned 60 as of December 13, 2007, would have aged seamlessly into FTEPA’s Age 65 regime; those 65 and older would have already aged out. So viewed, this targeted provision might be best understood as a stopgap measure designed to aid in the transition from the Age 60 to the Age 65 Rule. 7 Plaintiffs have not challenged the constitutionality of Congress’s decision to use 65 as the maximum flying age. See Adams Reply Br. 16 (“[T]he statutory provision being challenged is the seniority-stripping provision of the FTEPA, not the adjustment of the maximum flying age to 65.”). 8 APA, and there is no waiver of sovereign immunity to support an award of damages upon a declaration that a statute is unconstitutional.” Id. at 3–4. Plaintiffs respond with nearly a dozen rapid-fire arguments in the hope that one sticks, see Adams v. United States, No. 12-5026, Doc. No. 1413923 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 7, 2013), and the government’s reply effectively doubles down on earlier arguments, see Adams v. United States, No. 12-5026, Doc. No. 1415502 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2013). We think the government only partially correct.