Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICHAEL HUERTA
v.
AUSTIN HAUGHWOUT et al.

:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:16-cv-358 (JAM)

May 11, 2016

RESPONDENTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA 1
In response to the subpoenas, petition to enforce, and memoranda of law filed by the
petitioner, Michael Huerta, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
respondents, Austin and Bret Haughwout (the Haughwouts) submit this memorandum of law in
opposition to the petition. Enforcing the petition violates the prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures. This conclusion rests on two principles.
First, the investigation to which the subpoenas are directed is beyond the FAA’s statutory
and regulatory authority. The FAA investigation rests on an unreasonable construction of
“aircraft.” Accordingly, the subpoenas are an unreasonable exercise of authority, violating the
Fourth Amendment, and this Court should not enforce them.
Second, the subpoenas are unconstitutional as-applied. Even if the Court concludes the
FAA’s interpretation of its authority is appropriate, the government’s action in the present case
exceeds the permissible scope of the Commerce Power and infringes on state sovereignty in
violation of the Tenth Amendment. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Subpoenas issued pursuant to an unconstitutional end are
not reasonable searches or seizures, and this Court should not enforce them.

1

The Haughwouts respectfully direct the Court’s attention to a pending case that may
present legal questions similar to those in this case, John Taylor v. Michael Huerta, Case No. 151495 (D.C. Cir.).

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 24

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Haughwouts generally do not quibble with the background as recited by the FAA.
See Petitioner’s Memorandum, ECF No. 1 (Pet. Mem.) at 1–4. In the second half of 2015, the
FAA became aware of evidence that Austin Haughwout modified several devices and published
video on the Internet of these devices in action. The devices are colloquially known as “drones;”
the FAA describes the devices in the videos as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).
One video depicts a drone in a low hover discharging a handgun. See “Flying Gun,”
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs. Another depicts a drone in a low
hover discharging flames at a turkey—or what sometime had been a turkey—charred on a large
spit. See “Roasting the Holiday Turkey,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmD3rXUR1Tw.
The videos were tremendously popular on YouTube: the former has accumulated more than 3.5
million views, and the latter has accumulated more than 500,000 views. In both instances, the
devices move no higher than about shoulder height and are depicted in an open space within a
larger wooded area of moderate density.
After an investigation by local authorities, no action was taken. A state law was
proposed in response to the incident, but was not passed this legislative session. See Substitute
for Raised H.B. No. 5274, (status of bill) available at
https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2016
&bill_num=5274; see also Ex. A.
The FAA opened an investigation, and then it issued subpoenas to the Haughwouts on
November 5, 2015; November 24, 2015; and December 17, 2015. The Haughwouts indicated
they would not comply with the subpoenas unless compelled to do so by a court order and did
not appear for any of them.

2

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 24

On February 11, 2016, the FAA filed a petition with this Court to enforce the subpoenas
and also filed an accompanying memorandum of law. The FAA claimed that it was investigating
a potential violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, which prohibits operation of “an aircraft in a careless
or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” See Pet. Mem. 6.
On March 1, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the matter. Among other things, the
Court ordered supplemental briefing from the FAA. On March 22, the FAA filed its
supplemental brief. This memorandum followed. Further facts and procedural history are set
forth as necessary.
RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS
A. Generally
The constitutional requirements of administrative subpoenas are well established. The
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”
“Leaving enforcement to the courts indicates that Congress intended that judges should
not merely rubber-stamp the [administrative] subpoenas that come before them. . . . But, while
a district court's enforcement function is neither minor nor ministerial . . . it is well established
that it is a narrowly limited one . . . .” Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1266 (7th Cir.
1982) (citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). Whether an
administrative subpoena is constitutionally sound turns on inquiries concerning reasonableness.
“The gist of the [Fourth Amendment] protection is in the requirement, expressed in terms, that
the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.” Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S.
186, 208, 66 S. Ct. 494 (1946), accord Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., supra, (“[o]ur holding here .

3

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 24

. . simply reaffirms our holding in Oklahoma Press”); see also In re McVane, 44 F.3d 1127, 1136
(2d Cir. 1995) (explicitly relying on this section of Oklahoma Press).
There are a number of “minor linguistic variations” in how the Supreme Court articulates
tests of reasonableness; In re McVane, 44 F.3d 1127, 1135 (2d Cir. 1995); but reasonableness is
consistently the polestar for the inquiry. “[I]t is sufficient if [1.] the inquiry is within the
authority of the agency, [2.] the demand is not too indefinite and [3.] the information sought is
reasonably relevant.” Id., (emphasis added). Further requirements include that “[4.] the
information sought is not already within the [agency’s] possession” and that “[5.] the
administrative steps required . . . have been followed.” United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353,
359 (1989). The Haughwouts direct their opposition mainly at the issue of authority.
B. Scope of Authority
Before enforcing an administrative subpoena, “a court must assure itself that the subject
matter of the investigation is within the statutory jurisdiction of the subpoena-issuing agency.”
F.T.C. v. Ken Roberts, 276 F.3d 583, 586–87 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted.); F.E.C. v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 386 (D.C. Cir.
1981) (citing copious authority). If the subpoenas are issued pursuant to an improper
investigative purpose, the court should deny the petition. See United States v. LaSalle Nat. Bank,
437 U.S. 298, 313–14 (1978); see also Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Office of the Inspector Gen.,
R.R. Retirement Bd., 983 F.2d 631, 641 (5th Cir. 1993) (denying enforcement of administrative
subpoena because agency lacked authority to conduct compliance enforcement); E.E.O.C. v. Am.
& Efird Mills, Inc., 964 F.2d 300, 304 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting denial of enforcement of
administrative subpoena is appropriate where agency exceeds its authority). Scope of agency
authority in this context is a legal question. See Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Office of the Inspector

4

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 24

Gen., R.R. Retirement Bd., supra, 983 F.2d 641. “[A] court may not permit its process to be
abused.” United States v. LaSalle Nat. Bank, supra, 437 U.S. 314.
“The [target of an investigation] should not be burdened with having to comply with a
subpoena if . . . the district court believe[s] the agency issuing it has no jurisdiction to regulate
the [matter]. Questions of regulatory jurisdiction are properly addressed at the subpoenaenforcement stage if . . . they are ripe for determination at that stage. . . . Compliance with a
subpoena is a burden, and one that a person or institution that can show it is not subject to the
regulatory regime in aid of which the subpoena was issued should not be required to bear.”
Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 4 F.3d 490, 492 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing
copious authority).
C. The FAA overstates how much the Court “must” defer to it
The FAA contends that the “the court must defer to the FAA’s exercise of authority over
the UAS at this investigatory stage because the exercise of such authority is not frivolous . . . .” 2
Pet. Supp. Mem. 1, 10–12 (emphasis added). The FAA’s position is essentially that it enjoys
carte blanche investigatory power over whatever it considers to be an aircraft, and that the Court
ineluctably must adopt the FAAs construction of its jurisdiction or authority.
The FAA overstates the case. Rather, consonant with the Fourth Amendment, the
question fundamentally remains a reasonableness inquiry. The standard is deferential, but it is
not as feckless as the FAA maintains. As discussed in greater detail below, the FAA’s
construction is so absurd that it fails even the most charitably deferential standards of review.

2

The FAA’s position is not frivolous. The FAA is, however, obviously wrong. See note
6 of this memorandum, infra.
5

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 24

D. The FAAs cited authority concerning scope of authority is distinguishable or
inapposite
The Haughwouts now in seriatim distinguish or clarify each of the authorities cited by the
FAA on pages 10-12 of its supplemental memorandum concerning this issue.
1. Construction Products Research, Inc.
The FAA cites United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464 (2d
Cir. 1996) for the proposition that “[a]t this stage in the proceedings, courts need not determine
whether the subpoenaed party is within the agency’s jurisdiction or covered by the statute it
administers” and that “the coverage determination should wait until an enforcement action is
brought against the subpoenaed party.” 3 Id., 470 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The background to Construction Products Research is an investigation by the Nuclear
Regulatory Committee (NRC) into three related companies. During this initial investigation, the

3

Putting the FAA’s citations in context, the panel noted at 470–71:

Endicott Johnson was a watershed in administrative investigations. It was now
established that an agency could conduct an investigation even though it had no probable
cause to believe that any particular statute was being violated. . . . Indeed, an
administrative agency, like a grand jury, could now investigate merely on suspicion that
the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. . . .
Moreover, at the subpoena enforcement stage, courts need not determine whether the
subpoenaed party is within the agency's jurisdiction or covered by the statute it
administers; rather the coverage determination should wait until an enforcement action is
brought against the subpoenaed party. . . .
This is not to say that an agency may conduct any investigation it may conjure up;
the disclosure sought must always be reasonable. . . . This limitation of reasonableness
is satisfied [s]o long as an agency establishes that an investigation will be conducted
pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the
information sought is not already within [its] possession, and that the administrative steps
required . . . have been followed.
(Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) The FAA’s construction
of the standard cannot be squared with the analysis the panel actually engaged in.

6

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 24

whistleblower who initiated the process was terminated. He subsequently brought a claim with
the Department of Labor (DOL) for retaliation. The NRC, though, was concerned that past
treatment of whistleblowers by the three companies posed a threat to public health. So the NRC
opened a second investigation and issued subpoenas to the respondent employers concerning
whistleblowers.
These subpoenas were litigated in Construction Products Research. The object of the
subpoenas were employment documents concerning whistleblowers. Id., 468. The employers
claimed the subpoenas were beyond the NRC’s authority, and that only the DOL had such
power. On appeal, the Second Circuit panel disagreed.
The panel engaged in a substantive analysis of whether the investigation fell within the
authority of the NRC. Id., 471-73. Notwithstanding whatever quotes the FAA teases out in its
memorandum, the panel closely examined the language forming the statutory and regulatory
bases for the investigation. The analysis was substantive, not superficial. The panel
fundamentally determined whether “the NRC has the authority to conduct this particular
investigation and to obtain the information sought by the subpoena.” Id., 473.
Here, the FAA’s position is that the analysis that the Second Circuit actually engaged in
is inappropriate. The Haughwouts are asking this Court to engage in a review similar to that
which the panel engaged in.
What distinguishes the present case from Construction Products Research is that in that
case, there was no question as to the scope of the NRC’s own organic statute—the main question
was about overlapping jurisdiction, and whether one agency or another had jurisdiction. The
meaning of the organic statute of the NRC was reviewed but not an especially contentious
matter.

7

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 24

In contrast, the present case is directly concerned with the scope of the authority
conferred on the FAA by its organic statute. This is a matter of first impression for an Article III
court. As discussed below, the statute is ambiguous, and the agency’s construction is absurd.
This is not a question of overlapping jurisdiction—the matter here is more fundamental than the
issues presented in Construction Products Research.
2. Ken Roberts Co.
The FAA relies on F.T.C. v. Ken Roberts, 276 F.3d 583 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The passage
cited is that “courts of appeals have consistently deferred to agency determinations of their own
investigative authority, and have generally refused to entertain challenges to agency authority in
proceedings to enforce compulsory process.” 4 Id. at 586.
The issue in Ken Roberts was whether the FTC’s jurisdiction was preempted by the
passage of several laws—not unlike Construction Products Research. On appeal, the panel

4

Putting the FAA’s citations in context, the panel noted at 585–87:

Following Endicott, courts of appeals have consistently deferred to agency
determinations of their own investigative authority, and have generally refused to
entertain challenges to agency authority in proceedings to enforce compulsory
process. . . .
Subpoena enforcement power is not limitless, however. In United States v.
Morton Salt . . . the Court emphasized that a subpoena is proper only where the inquiry is
within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information
sought is reasonably relevant. Accordingly, there is no doubt that a court asked to
enforce a subpoena will refuse to do so if the subpoena exceeds an express statutory
limitation on the agency's investigative powers. . . . Thus, a court must assure itself
that the subject matter of the investigation is within the statutory jurisdiction of the
subpoena-issuing agency. . . . These cases amply demonstrate that while the courts' role
in subpoena enforcement may be a strictly limited one, it is neither minor nor
ministerial. . . .
In adhering to the foregoing principles, we have held that enforcement of an
agency's investigatory subpoena will be denied only when there is a patent lack of
jurisdiction in an agency to regulate or to investigate. . . .
(Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
8

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 24

inquired whether the new statutes “evince an unambiguous intent to deprive the FTC of its
otherwise applicable authority . . . .” The panel engaged in a lengthy analysis of the relevant
statutes and legislative history. Id., 585–93. That is, the panel “assure[d] itself that the subject
matter of the investigation [wa]s within the jurisdiction of the subpoena-issuing agency.” Id.,
586.
The hallmark of the jurisdictional analysis was reasonableness: “Because under no
reasonable reading . . . does either of those statutes manifestly strip the FTC of its broad power
over deceptive advertising, we affirm the District Court's decision that appellants must comply
with the FTC's compulsory process.” Id., 584. In the present case, the Haughwouts are asking
the Court to engage in the same kind of assessment of reasonableness of the claimed authority.
Like Construction Products Research, what distinguishes Ken Roberts from the present
case is that Ken Roberts principally concerned which agency held jurisdiction. Unlike the
present case, there was not a serious question presented as to the fundamental meaning an
agency’s organic statute.
3. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
The FAA relies on United States v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 84 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 1996) for
the proposition that “[a]s long as the agency’s assertion of authority is not obviously apocryphal,
a procedurally sound subpoena must be enforced.” In Sturm, OSHA was investigating a
company where an unusually high number of employees were afflicted with multiple movement
disorders. Id., 3. OSHA issued subpoenas pursuant to the investigation, which the company
challenged. Id.
The company employed a kind of scattershot defense to the subpoenas, which proved
wildly unsuccessful. Among other things, the company claimed OSHA lacked the authority in

9

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 24

its organic statute to issue the subpoenas. Id., 4–5. The reviewing court concluded it was
“apodictic” that OSHA had such authority. Id., 5. This is what distinguishes the present case.
The matter here is a question of first impression. Unlike OSHA’s authority in Sturm, the
definition of aircraft upon which the FAA relies is not clearly established or beyond dispute.
Here, it is an open and unsettled question and merits review.
4. Beacon Aerospace Corp.
The FAA relies on United States v. Beacon Aerospace Corp., No. 3:99-MC-146 (D.
Conn. Jan. 11, 2000) (2000 WL 92350). The petition to enforce the administrative subpoena in
that case was dismissed as moot: “Without determining whether [Beacon's] surrender of its
certificate removes it from FAA regulatory oversight, the court concludes that [the court] lacks
jurisdiction to rule on this petition to enforce the subpoena.” Id., *2. The opinion provides some
useful citations, but ultimately it is a case about mootness, not whether the FAA had the
authority to issue an administrative subpoena.
5. Civil Procedure
On pages 11–12 of its supplemental memorandum, the FAA imports a principle from
civil procedure—that denying enforcement “is akin to requiring a plaintiff to conclusively prove
jurisdictional facts in litigation without allowing that plaintiff access to the discovery process to
obtain the information that might be necessary to prove them.” An analogy to civil procedure is
appropriate. But denying enforcement here is more akin to a common law demurrer or a
12(b)(6) motion: upon reviewing the statutes, the FAA has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Accordingly, the FAA is not entitled to burden the Haughwouts with the
“discovery” process—the administrative subpoena. The FAA’s claim is unavailing.

10

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 24

6. Other Cases Cited in this Section
The FAA mentions a few other cases on pages 10–12 of its supplemental memorandum.
These cases are cited generically, for persuasive-but-not-on-point language, and accordingly they
are not addressed in detail.
E. The present case concerns a fundamental question of scope of authority like in
Truckers United for Safety and Burlington Northern Railroad
In both Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Office of the Inspector Gen., R.R. Retirement Bd.,
(Burlington) 983 F.2d 631, 641 (5th Cir. 1993) and Truckers United for Safety v. Mead,
(Truckers United) 251 F.3d 183 (D.C.Cir.2001), a Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded that
granting an administrative subpoena was improper because the subpoena exceeded the agency’s
scope of authority. Like the present case, both of those cases concerned a matter where there
was a genuine question as to the scope of an investigative agency’s jurisdiction.
In Burlington, an Inspector General had been accorded oversight powers, but not
regulatory powers. The Inspector General conducted a review of taxes paid by certain railroads.
The work was somewhat duplicative of work done by the IRS, but the Inspector General detected
irregularities that went undetected by the IRS and the Railroad Retirement Board (which itself
relied on the IRS). In light of the irregularities, the Inspector General issued subpoenas, which
were challenged. The district court conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry into whether the
Inspector General had the power to conduct such an investigation—whether the Inspector
General’s investigation would be defined as regulatory or as oversight. This was apparently a
matter of first impression. Ultimately, the investigation was defined as regulatory in nature, and
therefore beyond the powers of the Inspector General. The administrative subpoenas were not
enforced.

11

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 24

Truckers United also concerned an Inspector General and the scope of authority accorded
by its three-year old organic statute. In that case, administrative subpoenas were challenged and
the companies investigated refused to comply. A warrant was obtained and the companies were
forced to comply, ahead of judicial oversight. Post-hoc, it was determined that the
administrative subpoenas were unenforceable because the Inspector General did not have
authority to conduct the investigations, and that the administrative subpoenas should not have
been enforced through the warrants.
Note that this was all before the enforcement stage of the investigations. The challenge
to the warrant and subpoenas did not occur at the merits stage of the investigation, but in a
proceeding in the immediate wake of the warrants. The statute was relatively new and did not
have extensive jurisprudence around it—the question of authority was genuine.
Like both Burlington and Truckers United, the present case concerns a matter that has not
been litigated before. There is a genuine question as to the authority of the FAA in this
context—the FAA does not have an extensive history of enforcement actions against drone
operators. Accordingly, review of the FAA’s claimed authority, however deferential, is
appropriate.
DISCUSSION
I.

THE INVESTIGATION IS BEYOND THE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
AUTHORITY OF THE FAA
In its supplemental memorandum, the FAA states that it relies on its organic statute for its

authority over the investigation. See Pet. Supp. Mem. 3–4. The FAA relies on 49 U.S.C.
§§ 40102(a)(6) and 40103(b). The sections cited state, in relevant part:

12

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 13 of 24

§40102(a) 5
(6) “aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the
air.
§ 40103(b)
(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and
policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use
of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft
(including regulations on safe altitudes) for . . .
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles,
and between aircraft and airborne objects.
The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines national airspace system as:
The common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment and services,
airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations
and procedures, technical information, and manpower and material. Included are system
components shared jointly with the military.
Pilot/Controller Glossary, PCG N-1 (2014) (Ex B.). In other words, the National Airspace
System concerns air traffic. See National Airspace System, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas
(accessed May 7, 2016); National Airspace System,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airspace_System (accessed May 7, 2016).
A. The Subpoena Rests on an Unreasonable, Patently Absurd, Obviously Wrong,
Clearly Incorrect Construction of “Aircraft” 6

5

The FAA parrots this definition in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, which defines an aircraft as “a device
that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.”
6
The subpoena is not, however, frivolous. The FAA implicitly equates “obviously
wrong” and “patently incorrect” and the like with “frivolous” in its supporting memorandum.
This is misleading.
A claim can be obviously wrong and patently incorrect yet non-frivolous. For example, a
Supreme Court majority might conclude that a colleague on the court is “obviously wrong” on a
point of law in his or her concurring opinion. Future attorneys might, in time, rely on that
concurring opinion in making a legal claim. Under prevailing law, such a claim would be
13

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 14 of 24

The present case is one of first impression—no Article III Court has had occasion to
examine the scope of the term “aircraft” as used in the FAA organic statute or 14 C.F.R. § 1.1.
The statutory definition of aircraft is ambiguous, and the FAA’s construction is patently absurd.
Sure, §40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. §1.1 looks simple enough. A thing, any thing, that flies.
The verb fly, as in “fly in the air,” is not so plain, though. There is fly in the sense of
airborne locomotion, like how birds fly from one place to another. But . . . flags also fly, when
attached to a pole, don’t they? We also say that plastic bags or bits of paper carried on the air fly
about—isn’t that a motif in American Beauty? And don’t we say that bullets or knives or any
airborn dangerous object—don’t they fly through the air too, especially when there are lots of
them? Baseballs can go pretty high—we call it a “fly ball.” Okay.
For the sake of the argument, let’s imagine the “airborne locomotion” definition is the
only one. That leaves . . . Frisbees. Clay pigeons. Paper airplanes. A pole for pole vaulting. A
good pair of basketball sneakers. A rubber band. Spitballs. Anything juggled. A birthday
balloon. Hand tossed pizza dough. Ceramic plates during a lovers’ spat. Genetically
engineered fruit flies, bacteria, pollen. Alright, alright. 7

“obviously wrong,” but the claim would not be frivolous. It is improper to elide the standards of
“obviously wrong” or “patently incorrect” with “frivolous.”
Frivolous claims are subject to Rule 11 sanctions, and cannot reasonably be made in good
faith. A better analogy to these phrases indicating deference is something like abuse of
discretion—that no reasonable jurist could come to the same conclusion. This is consistent with
the ever present hallmark of reasonableness in the inquiry.
7
The FAA refers to line from United States v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 84 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st
Cir. 1996), that “so long as the agency's assertion of authority is not obviously apocryphal, a
procedurally sound subpoena must be enforced.” See Pet. Supp. Mem. 10, 12. Notwithstanding
the ornamental language, it is not clear what constitutes “apocrypha” in our especially secular
legal system. However, the FAA’s construction of “aircraft” is so far from acceptable canons of
construction that it is safely regarded as heretical pseudepigrapha.
14

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 15 of 24

Claiming that the statute is unambiguous requires accepting all of these as aircraft.
Claiming that only the plain language governs requires accepting all of these as aircraft. The
FAA recognizes the absurdity. So in note 1 of its memorandum, it conjures constraints that are
not in the statutory or regulatory definition to try to cabin the definition: an object that is “selfpropelled and capable of causing injury of person or property – is well within that boundary.”
But this Hail Mary pass is equally ineffective. How about a bullet? It’s self-propelled
with gunpowder and capable of causing injury. The FAA regulates bullets? Additionally, where
exactly does this narrowing language come from? The FAA provides no citation in note 1. It
certainly doesn’t come from 49 U.S.C. §40102(a)(6) or 14 C.F.R. §1.1, anyhow. The addition
begs the question—if the statute is so plain, why is this language even necessary for the FAA’s
argument?
In the next iteration of this strategy, will the FAA add “sustained flight,” a phrase
mentioned in another context in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112095)? Well then how long is “sustained”—every aircraft must land eventually, even if that’s in a
crash.
In Huerta v. Pirker, Docket No. CP-217 (N.T.S.B. Mar. 6, 2014) (Pirker I), the honorable
Patrick A. Geraghty 8, Administrative Law Judge to the National Transportation Safety Board,
said it best:
Accepting [the FAA’s] overreaching interpretation of the definition of “aircraft” would
result reduction ad [a]bsurdum in assertion of [Federal Aviation Regulations] regulatory
authority over any device/object used or capable of flight in the air, regardless of method
or propulsion or duration of flight.

8

Judge Geraghty passed away February 6, 2016. He was 82. See “Patrick G. Geraghty”
(accessed May 10, 2016) http://www.forevermissed.com/patrick-geraghty/#about.
15

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 16 of 24

See Pirker I, 7 n.24. Judge Geraghty also wisely pointed out that the FAA’s own scheme
implicitly recognizes that the definition of “aircraft” is not what the plain language of the statute
or 14 C.F.R. §1.1 because “ultralights” are not “aircraft.”
An Ultralight, a device used for flight in the air, is nevertheless governed by the
provisions of Part l03 [Federal Aviation Regulations], and whereupon meeting the criteria
stated in Section 103.1 is defined, not as an “aircraft”, but as an “Ultralight Vehicle”,
subject only to the particular regulatory provisions of Part 103,[Federal Aviation
Regulations].
Pirker I, 4. At the time the FAA organic statute was created, drones were the stuff of science
fiction. The statute did not contemplate their existence. Rather, the statute was directed at
airplanes, helicopters, and blimps, and the resources on the ground to support them.
The level of absurdity in the FAA’s construction and the playing so fast and loose with
the language in the FAA’s argument is classically arbitrary or capricious in substance, and
improper under any level of deference—Chevron, Skidmore, and Auer. The definition of aircraft
is ambiguous because the plain language leads to absurd results. The FAA’s construction is
obviously wrong and unreasonable. A subpoena pursuant to an obviously wrong statutory
construction is not a reasonable exercise of authority, and the Court should not grant a petition to
enforce such an unreasonable exercise of authority.
B. Pirker II has been widely criticized and was wrongly decided, and the FAA’s
reliance on it here is misplaced
On pages 4–7 of its supplemental memorandum, the FAA relies heavily on Huerta v.
Pirker, Docket No. CP-217 (N.T.S.B. Nov. 17, 2014) (Pirker II). Pirker II has been thoroughly
criticized by the nascent community of drone legal scholarship and others, whereas Judge
Geraghty’s opinion in Pirker I was widely praised. 9 Undersigned counsel was unable to find any

9

The following serves as a non-exclusive list of helpful examples, listed in an order
approximating perceived usefulness:
16

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 17 of 24

articles praising Pirker II or criticizing Pirker I; the uniformity of opinion is stark. (Undersigned
counsel notes he did come across a few articles that took a normative approach and that did not
express an opinion one way or the other.)
Pirker II is an outcome-oriented decision, necessitated by the FAA’s failure to keep to
the timeline congress set in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-095).

•

Peter Sachs, subheading: “The Pirker Case,” Drone Law Journal (Published Dec. 14, 2013;
Revised Dec. 25, 2015) http://dronelawjournal.com/ (praising Pirker I as “well-reasoned,
logical and scathing” and criticizing Pirker II, noting that “even paper airplanes are now
subject to FAR 91.13”).

•

Staff, “The Meaning of Yesterday’s NTSB Ruling” dronelaw.com (Nov. 19, 2014)
http://dronelaw.com/2014/11/19/meaning-yesterdays-ntsb-ruling/ (“We also think [Pirker II]
stands on shaky ground, and could be vulnerable on review by an Article III court.”).

•

Gregory S. McNeal, “The Federal Government Thinks Your Backyard Is National Airspace
And Toys Are Subject To FAA Regulations” Forbes (Nov. 18, 2014)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/11/18/the-federal-government-thinks-yourbackyard-is-national-airspace-and-toys-are-subject-to-faa-regulations/#4e27c6ac7ab4
(mocking Pirker II as absurd).

•

Megan Ralstin, “Why the FAA Drone Policies Are So Awful” Art Law Journal (Nov. 23,
2014) http://artlawjournal.com/faas-drone-policies-awful/ (criticizing Pirker II).

•

Alan Levin, “Commercial Drone Pilots Cheer Judge Finding Against FAA” Bloomberg
(Mar. 7, 2014) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-06/drone-pilot-s-finedropped-by-judge-finding-against-faa (noting widespread praise for Pirker I).

•

Elizabeth Kreft, “Commercial Drone Industry ‘Elated’ After Judge Drops FAA’s Case” The
Blaze (Mar. 7, 2014) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/07/commercial-droneindustry-elated-after-judge-drops-faas-case/ (noting widespread praise for Pirker I).

•

Ryan Calo, “FAA Appeals Drone Decision,” Center for Internet and Society (Mar. 13, 2014)
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/faa-appeals-drone-decision (questioning soundness
of an appeal by the FAA from Pirker I).

•

Wingedaeronaut, “Praise and Criticism for the FAA,” The Drone Perspective (Feb. 28, 2016)
https://thedroneperspective.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/praise-and-criticism-for-the-faa/
(noting that Pirker II demonstrated FAA inconsistency in the definition of aircraft).
17

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 18 of 24

Pirker II makes no attempt to cabin the broad definition of aircraft; it embraces it, holding that
the Administrator can pick and choose what to regulate. Pirker II 7. Accordingly, Pirker II rests
on the same flawed construction of aircraft discussed in the preceding section. The Court should
not place its imprimatur on Pirker II or its unreasonable definition of aircraft.
C. Small civilian drones are not “aircraft” under 49 USC §40102(a)(6) and
14 C.F.R. §1.1
For the purposes of this petition, it is not necessary to determine exactly what the proper
definition of an aircraft is. It is sufficient to determine whether the devices depicted in the video
are reasonably construed to be aircraft. Examining the policy underlying that definition and the
historical context indicates that the devices as used in the videos are not aircraft as contemplated
by the statute.
Congress laid out policy considerations for the FAA organic statute in 49 U.S.C. §40101.
Reviewing that statute shows that the FAA’s purpose is directed at air commerce for the nation
as a whole. The safety interest discussed in §40101 is first and foremost directed at air
commerce, and then air transportation services and the traveling and shipping public. The statute
is concerned with encouraging competitive markets, encouraging air transportation, air carriers,
air cargo, mail, and the working conditions in the air commerce industry. It’s about commerce at
the national level.
Nothing in §40101 evinces a concern for what people do in their back yard at ground
level under a forested canopy, away from any air infrastructure. Thus, the FAA does not have an
extensive history of enforcement actions against operators of small civilian drones. It’s not what
their policy as set by Congress directs them to do. Construing small civilian drones as aircraft is
not consonant with the history and policy purpose of the FAA. It was about airplanes,
helicopters, and blimps, and the accoutrements that accompany them.
18

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 19 of 24

II. THE GOVERNMENT ACTION IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT
If the Court should conclude that the FAA’s construction of “aircraft” is reasonable, the
Haughwouts present a constitutional argument as an alternative ground to deny enforcement of
the subpoenas. The FAA alleges that the subpoenas are issued pursuant to investigating potential
violations of 14 C.F.R. §91.13 10, promulgated under its organic statute. The FAA’s only
plausible basis for the congressional power underlying its organic statute is the Commerce
Clause. The FAA is in the business of securing interstate air commerce. 49 U.S.C. §40101. It is
wholly appropriate to investigate a violation of 14 C.F.R. §91.13 to plausibly protect interstate
commerce, its instrumentalities, or activities with a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
Practically speaking, though, the regulation that the FAA seeks to enforce is being used here as a
catch-all, criminal statute, like a breach of peace statute. It is not directed at commerce.
The FAA is not a fire marshal. The FAA is not in the business of regulating firearms.
And the FAA does not investigate generic breaches of the peace.

Under United States v. Lopez,

514 U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Commerce Power and
the Tenth Amendment, as-applied to the facts of the present case, the FAA exceeds the
constitutional limit of its organic statute and impermissibly infringes on state sovereignty.
A. Relevant Constitutional Standards
It is axiomatic that “[e]very law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its
powers enumerated in the Constitution.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000).
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in relevant part, “Congress shall have

10

14 C.F.R. §91.13(a) states, in relevant part, “Aircraft operations for the purpose of air
navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the life or property of another.”
19

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 20 of 24

Power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . .” The Tenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution states, in relevant part, “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.” Where the Commerce Clause ends, the Tenth Amendment
begins, so exceeding the former violates the latter.
With respect to the scope of the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has “identified
three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. . . .
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. . . . Second,
Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or
persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate
activities. . . . Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those
activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce . . . i.e., those activities that
substantially affect interstate commerce . . . .” United States v. Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. 558–59
(citations omitted).
B. The Lopez and Morrison framework
Lopez concerned a congressional statute that made it illegal to possess a firearm in a
school zone. The Supreme Court concluded that enforcing the statute exceeded the bounds of
the Commerce Clause. Possession of a firearm in a school zone did not concern a channel of
interstate commerce, nor an instrumentality or person or thing in interstate commerce. And as a
criminal statute with no connection to commerce or economic enterprise, the statute had nothing
to do with commerce. Id., 561. The Court also reasoned that upholding the government action
“would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general
police power of the sort retained by the States” and eliminate “a distinction between what is truly

20

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 21 of 24

national and what is truly local . . . .” Id., 567–68. Ultimately, under Lopez, mere possession of
a gun in a particular location was not a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Morrison concerned parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which provided a
federal civil remedy to victims of gender-based violence, even where no criminal charges had
been filed. Relying on Lopez, the Court concluded that violence perpetrated against women was
not directly economic; even though there were indirect economic consequences, these were too
attenuated to constitute a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. United States v. Morrison,
supra, 529 U.S. 608, 612. The Court repeated its concern that upholding the government action
would “obliterate the Constitution's distinction between national and local authority . . . .” Id.,
615. In the final analysis, “a but-for causal chain from the initial occurrence of violent crime”
did not indicate a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” See id., 613–14.
C. In the present case, §91.13 is not directed at economic activity 11
The facts of the present case are analogous to Lopez and Morrison. Mere possession of
drones, and employing them in the back yard, under the tree canopy, cannot plausibly touch the
channels or instrumentalities of interstate air commerce. The activities depicted—discharging a
handgun a few times and burning a turkey in the backyard—do not plausibly have a substantial
effect on interstate commerce. Like the possession of a gun in Lopez, merely possessing items
the FAA claims may interfere with interstate commerce is not enough reasonably to constitute a
substantial effect on interstate commerce. There being no reasonable application of §91.13 to
interstate commerce under the facts of the present case, the FAA is obviously wrong to petition

11

However unlikely, is possible that the FAA will claim that the commercial activity is
the publication of the YouTube videos. First, that activity falls outside of the FAAs jurisdiction,
with all the implications addressed in Part I of this memorandum. Second, if the FAA does raise
such a claim, the Haughwouts reserve the right to submit a sur-reply concerning the First
Amendment implications of such a position.
21

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 22 of 24

the Court for enforcement of subpoenas in the present case, and the Court should deny the
petition.
D. In the present case, §91.13 is directed at traditional state concerns, and the state has
specifically declined to legislate on this issue
It is plain that the government action is directed at the use of a flame thrower and the use
of a firearm. It is not directed at the use of a drone. The drone merely provides the occasion—a
fig leaf to become involved in something that is traditionally a matter of local concern. This is
clear given the historical lack of enforcement actions against small drone users. Like the
possession of a firearm in a school zone or like gender-based violence, prosecuting the conduct
depicted in the videos under §91.13 threatens to obliterate the distinction between national and
local authority. Local authorities conducted an investigation and found no wrongdoing. Local
state government considered a bill to make some of the conduct in the videos unlawful but did
not adopt it. See Substitute for Raised H.B. No. 5274, (status of bill) available at
https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2016
&bill_num=5274; see also Ex. A. Firearm safety and permits, and fire safety are traditionally
areas of local concern, not national concern. The FAA is using the Commerce power as a local
police power, infringing on state sovereignty. This is not a reasonable exercise of authority, and
the Court should deny the petition as unreasonable.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition should be denied.
/s/ phv07800_________________
Mario Cerame
Until May 19, 2016
Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, LLC
96 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106
22

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 23 of 24

Phone: 860.231.7766
Cell: 607.351.3820
Fax: 860.231.7359
mcerame@ftlawct.com

Starting May 20, 2016
Randazza Legal Group, LLC
4035 S. El Capitan Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Phone: 702.420-2001
Cell: 607.351.3820
Fax: 305.437.7662

23

 Case 3:16-cv-00358-JAM Document 15 Filed 05/13/16 Page 24 of 24

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that, on this 13 day of May, 2016, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s
electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the
Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/ phv07800 _______
Mario Cerame

24