In one of the first post "Chevron Deference" court cases against the FAA to take place in a Judical Branch Court instead of an unconstitutional agency court in the Executive Branch,
As reported by Flying Magazine https://www.flyingmag.com/court-rules-faas-medication-denial-arbitrary-and-capricious/ In a decision handed down on June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it could not reverse the FAA’s decision, but it did order the agency to explain its reasoning. The ruling could provide a path forward for pilot Michael Solondz, who has been denied an FAA special issuance four times over the past four years while taking the antidepressant drug mirtazapine, known by the brand name Remeron.
“Determinations regarding which medications categorically pose unacceptable risks and which pilots are medically fit to fly lie squarely within the sound discretion of the Federal Aviation Administration,” wrote Judge Cornelia Pillard. “But the agency must reasonably explain its actions. It has not done so here. The agency has failed to explain why it categorically disallows medical certification to all pilots who take the medication that Solondz was prescribed and finds beneficial, rather than permitting conditional approvals if merited under the agency’s robust medical clearance process. We accordingly remand to the Federal Aviation Administration to explain its decision.” The Court documents are posted here. https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2025/30June2025_DC_circuit_decision_Solondz_v_FAA.pdf?_gl=1*s1e1zr*_gcl_au*MTQ0ODM1MDA4LjE3NDYwMTg0MjM.*_ga*MTA1OTI0ODczNy4xNzQ2MDE4NDIz*_ga_B4TCX358SE*czE3NTE5MDY0NzYkbzYkZzEkdDE3NTE5MDY3MDckajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_SM42H3BVW5*czE3NTE5MDY0NzckbzYkZzEkdDE3NTE5MDY3MDckajYwJGwwJGgw
In an article by AOPA https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/july/03/court-rules-faa-antidepressant-denial-arbitrary#:~:text=The%20June%2027%20decision%20from,the%20FAA's%20denial%20of%20Solondz's
The June 27 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stops short of ordering the FAA to issue a medical certificate to petitioner Michael Solondz, but the court (which is the first stop for those challenging a special issuance denial) declared that the FAA's denial of Solondz's special issuance application was "arbitrary and capricious," the key phrase in a narrowly defined legal standard that guided the court's review. "The FAA's thin and variable explanations in the Final Denial Letter and in its brief on appeal do not satisfy that standard," the court wrote.
IN a linkedIn post by PMHC https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pilotmentalhealthcampaign_safetynotstigma-activity-7346189802351808512-Mwi1?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAAABFbtwB8-RqEQ-VpzVwYqjJ3rBRdKfM4Q8&utm_campaign=copy_link
Appeals Court deals unanimous blow to FAA!
Our friends at Ramos Law shared some exciting news about a recent victory. Working with Stinson Law Firm, they successfully argued that their client’s Special Issuance had been unjustly denied.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Columbia Circuit, ruled that the FAA’s final denial was “arbitrary and capricious because the FAA has not adequately articulated a rationale for its policy categorically barring pilots under treatment with mirtazapine (Remeron) from Special Issuance medical certification.”
The Court went even further: “To be clear, we do not question the FAA’s authority to categorically deny medical certification to pilots who are using certain prescription medications. Yet, when an agency adopts a substantive policy without rulemaking or public comment and it applies it in a particular case, it is especially important that it meets ‘its responsibility to present evidence and reasoning supporting’ that policy…The FAA’s thin and variable explanations in the Final Denial Letter and in its brief on appeal do not satisfy that standard.”