Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S.
Decision Date | 18 June 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 12–5294.,12–5294. |
Citation | 718 F.3d 974 |
Parties | DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Appellant v. EXPORT–IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Appellees Air Line Pilots Association, International, Intervenor–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:11–cv–02024).
Michael K. Kellogg argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Wan J. Kim, Gregory G. Rapawy, W. Joss Nichols, Jonathan A. Cohen, R. Russell Bailey, and Stephen B. Moldof.
Mark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Helen L. Gilbert, Attorney, and Sparkle L. Sooknanan, Attorney.
Steven G. Bradbury, C.B. Buente, and Quentin Riegel were on the brief for amicus curiae National Association of Manufacturers in support of appellees.
Before: HENDERSON, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
The Export–Import Bank of the United States is a federal agency that issues loans and loan guarantees to foreign corporations so that they can purchase American goods and services. In 2011, the Export–Import Bank approved $3.4 billion in loan guarantees to Air India so that Air India could purchase Boeing airplanes. Air India plans to use the planes to provide air service on transoceanic routes. Before issuing the loan guarantees, the Bank was required under the Export–Import Bank Act to consider the effects that the loan guarantees would have on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. See12 U.S.C. §§ 635(b)(1)(B), 635a–2. Delta Air Lines argues that the Bank failed to consider those effects, in violation of the Bank Act. At this stage, we conclude simply that the Bank failed to reasonably explain its application of the Bank Act in this case, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court. The District Court is directed to remand the case to the Bank without vacating any of the Bank's actions in this matter to date.
The Export–Import Bank Act establishes the Export–Import Bank of the United States and authorizes the Bank to provide loans and loan guarantees that allow foreign companies to purchase American goods and services. The Bank Act also contains numerous provisions that limit the Bank's authority to extend loans and loan guarantees to foreign corporations. Two such provisions are directly relevant in this case. Section 635(b)(1)(B) of Title 12 provides that the Bank “shall take into account any serious adverse effect” of a loan or loan guarantee on certain U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. 12 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1)(B). Similarly, Section 635a–2 provides that the Bank “shall implement such regulations and procedures as may be appropriate to insure that full consideration is given to the extent to which any loan or financial guarantee is likely to have an adverse effect” on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. 12 U.S.C. § 635a–2.1
To comply with the Bank Act, the Bank has developed a set of Economic Impact Procedures. Those procedures are designed to identify categories of loans and loan guarantees that do not have an adverse effect on the relevant portions of the U.S. economy. Such loans and loan guarantees are thus effectively screened out from more detailed economic analysis during the consideration of particular loans or loan guarantees. As relevant here, the Economic Impact Procedures screen out transactions that do not “result in the foreign production of an exportable good.” J.A. 1129. In other words, loans and loan guarantees that help foreign service providers (such as Air India's airline service) have been categorically determined not to affect U.S. industries and U.S. jobs.
Here, the Bank applied those procedures to Air India's loan guarantees. Because Air India planned to use the loan guarantees to increase the number of transoceanic flights it offered—a service, not an exportable good—the Bank did not specifically consider the impact of the loan guarantees on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. Delta argues that this approach is inconsistent with the Bank Act, which according to Delta requires consideration of the impact of individual loans and loan guarantees—including to foreign service providers—on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. The District Court agreed with the Bank, and Delta now appeals.
The Bank's initial defense to Delta's challenge is that its implementation of these provisions of the Bank Act is committed to its discretion by law and is therefore judicially unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. See5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The District Court concluded otherwise. We agree with the District Court.
Agency action, the Supreme Court has said, is presumptively subject to judicial review. See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) ( )(citation omitted). The APA contains two exceptions: Review is unavailable when (i) it is precluded by statute or (ii) when agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. See5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)–(2).
The Bank primarily argues that the second exception applies here. Under that exception, agency action is committed to agency discretion by law and thus judicially unreviewable when there is “no law to apply.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ( )(internal quotation marks omitted).
Section 635(b)(1)(B) mandates that the Bank “ shall take into account any serious adverse effect” a guarantee might have on certain U.S. industries or U.S. jobs. See12 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Similarly, Section 635a–2 mandates that the Bank “ shall implement such regulations and procedures as may be appropriate to insure that full consideration is given to the extent to which any loan or financial guarantee is likely to have an adverse effect” on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. Id.§ 635a–2 (emphasis added). The language in both provisions identifies factors that the Bank must consider—namely, the adverse effects on U.S. industries and U.S. jobs. Ensuring that agencies follow commands of this sort is of course standard judicial fare. These statutes provide enough law to qualify as “law to apply” under the relevant APA precedents. See Amador County v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 381 (D.C.Cir.2011) ( ); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282, 293 (D.C.Cir.1991) (same); Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37, 45 (D.C.Cir.1985) (per curiam) (); see also 3 Richard J. Pierce, Jr. Administrative Law Treatise § 17.6 (4th ed. 2002) ( ).
The Bank also suggests, in passing, that the Bank Act implicitly precludes judicial review, the first Section 701(a) exception to judicial review. In support, the Bank says that it is designed to function like a commercial bank, not a federal agency. But the Bank is indisputably a federal agency. 12 U.S.C. § 635(a)(1) (). The Bank further contends that judicial review would undermine its ability to operate effectively. No doubt many agencies feel that way at times, but an agency that wants a carve-out from the APA should direct its arguments to Congress. The Bank Act does not preclude judicial review for purposes of Section 701(a)(1).
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S. , 878 F.Supp.2d 42, 57–58 (D.D.C. 2012), rev'd on other grounds, Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S. , 718 F.3d 974 (D.C. Cir. 2013). For instance, the Supreme Court has held that "competitors of financial institutions have standing to c......
-
Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Acosta
...regulations] provide enough law to qualify as ‘law to apply’ under the relevant APA precedents." Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S. , 718 F.3d 974, 977 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the substance of the Court's review of OSHA's challenged conduct here will certainly be circum......
-
Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls. & Sch. v. Devos
...provides standards for the agency to apply and for the courts to review." Id. at 138 (citing Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export–Import Bank of the U.S., 718 F.3d 974, 976–77 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ). The HEA provides that[i]f the Secretary determines that an accrediting agency ... has failed to appl......
-
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of U.S.
...did not determine that the exportable goods screen was inconsistent with the Bank Act. See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export–Import Bank (“Delta I ”), 718 F.3d 974, 975 (D.C.Cir.2013) (per curiam). Instead, the circuit court simply held that the Bank “[had] not reasonably explained its justif......