Background
Pilot James Knight tested positive for amphetamine after reporting for work at Channel Islands Aviation. Knight said he had mistakenly taken his son’s Vyvanse instead of his own cholesterol medication while dealing with his son’s medical emergency. The FAA nevertheless issued an emergency order seeking to revoke Knight’s airline transport pilot, ground instructor, and medical certificates for performing a safety-sensitive function with a prohibited drug in his system.
An administrative law judge found that Knight violated the applicable regulation and had not proven accidental ingestion, but reduced the sanction from revocation to a 90-day suspension. On cross-appeals, the National Transportation Safety Board found that Knight had proven accidental ingestion, yet upheld the suspension because he reported for duty without disclosing the ingestion or ensuring that the drug was no longer in his system.
Knight then sought attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. An ALJ awarded him fees, but the Board reversed, finding that although Knight was a prevailing party because he avoided revocation, the FAA Administrator’s position was substantially justified. Knight petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of that denial.
The Court’s Holding
The D.C. Circuit denied Knight’s petition, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the Administrator’s position was substantially justified throughout the administrative proceeding. The court assumed without deciding that the FAA’s position should be assessed at each successive phase, rather than only as a whole, because the agency satisfied even that more exacting approach.
The FAA had a reasonable basis to initiate the case because Knight tested positive for amphetamine while performing or available to perform a safety-sensitive function, and agency guidance generally called for revocation for such a violation. Knight’s pre-enforcement assertion that he accidentally took Vyvanse did not require the FAA to accept that account without a hearing, particularly because the defense depended on credibility findings.
The FAA also remained substantially justified in seeking revocation after the ALJ imposed only a suspension. Revocation was authorized by agency guidance, and the record showed that Knight reported for duty after realizing he had taken Vyvanse and knowing it was similar to amphetamine, without alerting his employer or confirming that the drug had cleared his system. The FAA’s eventual loss on the sanction question did not automatically make its position unreasonable for EAJA purposes.
Key Takeaways
- A party who prevails by obtaining a reduced administrative sanction is not automatically entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA; fees may still be denied when the agency’s position was substantially justified.
- An airman’s assertion of accidental ingestion does not negate a violation for performing a safety-sensitive function with a prohibited drug in the airman’s system; it may instead mitigate the sanction if proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- An agency may be substantially justified in pursuing a case that turns on witness credibility because the relevant factual dispute cannot be resolved without a hearing.
- The FAA’s decision to seek revocation remained reasonable even though the NTSB ultimately determined that a 90-day suspension was the appropriate sanction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the deferential substantial-evidence review governing agency denials of EAJA fees. Successfully defeating the government’s preferred sanction does not establish that the government acted unreasonably, especially where regulations and agency guidance supported its position and the outcome depended on disputed facts and credibility determinations.
For aviation practitioners, the opinion also clarifies that accidental ingestion functions as a sanction-related mitigating factor rather than a complete defense to a positive-drug-test violation. Certificate holders therefore may remain subject to discipline even when the ingestion was unintentional.