49 U.S.C. § 46110

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Filing and Venue.—Except for an order related to a foreign air carrier subject to disapproval by the President under section 41307 or 41509(f) of this title, a person disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (or the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration) in whole or in part under this part, part B, or subsection (l) or (r) of section 114 may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order is issued. The court may allow the petition to be filed after the 60th day only if there are reasonable grounds for not filing by the 60th day.(b)Judicial Procedures.—When a petition is filed under subsection (a) of this section, the clerk of the court immediately shall send a copy of the petition to the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, as appropriate. The Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall file with the court a record of any proceeding in which the order was issued, as provided in section 2112 of title 28.(c)Authority of Court.—When the petition is sent to the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify, or set aside any part of the order and may order the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct further proceedings. After reasonable notice to the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the court may grant interim relief by staying the order or taking other appropriate action when good cause for its action exists. Findings of fact by the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.(d)Requirement for Prior Objection.—In reviewing an order under this section, the court may consider an objection to an order of the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration only if the objection was made in the proceeding conducted by the Secretary, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or if there was a reasonable ground for not making the objection in the proceeding.(e)Supreme Court Review.—A decision by a court under this section may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court under section 1254 of title 28.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1230; Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 140(b)(1), (2), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 641; Pub. L. 108–176, title II, § 228, Dec. 12, 2003, 117 Stat. 2532; Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, § 1991(f)(1)–(4), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3642; Pub. L. 118–63, title XI, § 1101(s), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1414.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
46110(a)	49 App.:1486(a), (b) (as 1486(a), (b) relates to Secretary and CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(a), (b), (e), (f) (as § 1006(a), (b), (e), (f) relates to Administrator and CAB), 72 Stat. 795.
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, § 1601(b)(1)(E); added Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, § 3(e), 98 Stat. 1704.
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).	Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, § 6(c)(1), 80 Stat. 938; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97–449, § 7(b), 96 Stat. 2444.
46110(b)	49 App.:1486(c) (related to Secretary and CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(c) (related to Administrator and CAB), 72 Stat. 795; restated June 29, 1960, Pub. L. 86–546, § 1, 74 Stat. 255.
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46110(c)	49 App.:1486(d) (related to Secretary and CAB).	Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 1006(d) (related to Administrator and CAB), 72 Stat. 795; restated Sept. 13, 1961, Pub. L. 87–225, § 2, 75 Stat. 497.
	49 App.:1486(e) (1st sentence related to Secretary and CAB).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46110(d)	49 App.:1486(e) (last sentence) (related to Secretary and CAB).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).
46110(e)	49 App.:1486(f) (related to Secretary and CAB).
	49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E).
	49 App.:1655(c)(1).

In subsections (a)–(d), the word “Administrator” in section 1006 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85–726, 72 Stat. 795) is retained on authority of 49:106(g).

In subsection (a), the words “affirmative or negative” are omitted as surplus. The words “is issued” are substituted for “the entry of” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words “if any” are omitted as surplus. The words “of any proceeding” are added for clarity. The words “complained of” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (c), the word “amend” is added for consistency in the revised title. The word “interim” is substituted for “interlocutory” for clarity. The words “taking other appropriate action” are substituted for “by such mandatory or other relief as may be appropriate” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (d), the words “made in the proceeding conducted by” are substituted for “urged before” for clarity.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–63 substituted “subsection (l) or (r) of section 114” for “subsection (l) or (s) of section 114”.

2018—Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(4), substituted “Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration,” for “Under Secretary,” wherever appearing.

Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(2), substituted “or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration” for “or Administrator” wherever appearing.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(3), substituted “by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration)” for “by the Administrator)”.

Pub. L. 115–254, § 1991(f)(1), substituted “Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration” for “Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary”.

2003—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–176, in first sentence, struck out “safety” before “duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator)” and substituted “in whole or in part under this part, part B, or subsection (l) or (s) of section 114” for “under this part”.

2001—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(1), inserted “the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or” after “(or”.

Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 107–71, § 140(b)(2), substituted “, Under Secretary, or Administrator” for “or Administrator” wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2003 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–176 applicable only to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 2003, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–176, set out as a note under section 106 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 433 cases (95 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Pucciariello v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pucciariello v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 52× “The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (2006), the United States courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review the FAA’s termination of Mr.”

St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 12× “It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the FAA's actions concerning the ROD because under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 , those claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of appeals.”

Faisal Nabin Kashem v. William Barr, 941 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “The panel held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims for lack of jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (a), which places review of Transportation Security Administration orders in the courts of appeals rather than the district court.”

Jonathan Blitz v. Janet Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 13× “On appeal, the Plaintiffs maintain that the district court erred in so ruling because the TSA’s standard operating procedures for checkpoint screening (the “Checkpoint Screening SOP”) — which includes AIT scanners and passenger pat-downs — does not constitute an “order” under 49…”

Ege v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 784 F.3d 791 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 16× “And because we have no jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 to issue an order binding the TSC, we ipso facto cannot redress Ege’s injury even if we were inclined to agree with him.”

Saeb Mokdad v. Loretta E. Lynch, 804 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 13× “The letter stated that “[f]inal determinations are reviewable by the United States Court of Appeals pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 .” Id. No. 14-1094 Mokdad v.”

Lacson v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 726 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “42-43), and Lacson filed a petition for review of the SSI Order in this court, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 . II The parties agree that we have jurisdiction over this appeal.”

Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “Instead, the district court ruled that 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (a) stripped it of the jurisdiction it would otherwise have had over these claims pursuant to 28 U.”

Safe Extensions, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “On December 15, Safe Extensions filed a petition for review of AC-42F pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (a), which allows any “person disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by the .”

City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. Fed. Aviation Admin. & Dep't of Transp., City of Cleveland, Ohio, Intervenor, 292 F.3d 261 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “Olmsted Falls filed this petition for review of the Record of Decision on December 29, 2000, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (a). Subsequently this Court denied Olmsted Falls’ motion to stay and motion to expedite.”

Kovac v. Wray, 363 F. Supp. 3d 721 (N.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 6× “Kovac has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and his claims are, therefore, not ripe for adjudication; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and all claims must, therefore, be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…”

City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Michael Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “” 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (a). The parties disagree over when this sixty-day clock began to run—i.”

Show all 433 citing cases →

— 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) — 2 cases

United Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 859 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Robinson (D.V.I. 2026).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.