Judge says high-flying pilot can't transport pot to Alaska villages by air; his loss of license will stand

In 2017, the Federal Aviation Administration revoked James M. Fejes Jr.’s pilot’s license, after he had been flying cannabis products to shops around Alaska with Flying High Investments, his company that was dissolved in 2020.

Fejes challenged the revocation in federal district court, saying the federal government does not regulate commerce within the state of Alaska. He was not crossing state lines with his bundles of weed, so interstate commerce laws didn’t apply. His arguments failed the Ninth Circuit.

“Although many states have legalized recreational marijuana, it continues to be a controlled substance federally,” Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote in the ruling.

Fejes, who held a pilot certificate issued by the FAA, came under scrutiny after Alaska’s Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) reported him for violating regulations pertaining to the transportation of marijuana. Despite marijuana being legalized for most uses under Alaska state law, Fejes’s activities were deemed illegal under federal statutes.

The FAA invoked § 44710(b)(2), a provision that mandates the revocation of a pilot certificate when the individual knowingly engages in an activity related to controlled substances punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Fejes’s use of aircraft for the distribution of marijuana fell squarely within this provision, leading to the revocation of his pilot certificate.

Fejes contested the revocation, arguing that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to regulate purely intrastate commerce such as marijuana delivery within Alaska. However, the panel rejected this argument, citing the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, including the use of airspace.

Furthermore, Fejes attempted to invoke an exemption under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, which allows for the transportation of controlled substances authorized by federal or state statutes. However, the FAA maintained that this exemption did not apply to Fejes’s case, as it relied on a different provision in law.

Finally, Fejes challenged the interpretation of § 44710(b)(2) by the FAA, arguing that his conduct did not align with enforcement priorities outlined in a memorandum on marijuana-related prosecutions. However, the panel dismissed this argument, emphasizing that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for the revocation of a pilot certificate under the statute.

The ruling fortifies the FAA’s authority to regulate aviation activities, even in the context of state laws that conflict with federal statutes.

While the U.S. Department of Justice has directed prosecutors to use discretion in spending resources to pursue marijuana crimes in states where pot is legal, the court opinion noted: That “does not alter marijuana’s status — it remains illegal under federal law.”

The ruling is at this link: