Date Filed: September 10, 2026
Original Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Status: Pending
Wings of Mercy is a Michigan-based nonprofit that has spent the past 35 years arranging free flights for patients in rural and underserved communities. Its network of volunteer pilots flies patients to appointments at world-class facilities like the Mayo Clinic, the University of Wisconsin Hospital, and the Cleveland Clinic. The organization is funded entirely by private donations—patients and their insurers pay nothing.
The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) treats any reimbursement of a pilot’s expenses as flying “for compensation or hire” and regulates volunteer pilots like commercial airlines. Since 2010, the FAA has granted volunteer pilot organizations limited exemptions from those commercial operating requirements. But those exemptions include burdensome paperwork and operating conditions.
In 2012, Congress stepped in to provide relief. Section 821 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act requires FAA to allow pilots to accept reimbursement for fuel costs on charitable medical flights, subject to a few enhanced safety requirements related to the pilot’s training and experience.
FAA ignored that mandate. For the next decade, FAA continued to impose conditions in exemptions that have nothing to do with training or experience. When FAA granted Wings of Mercy an exemption in March 2025, it mandated a commercial-grade second-class medical certificate, limited the kinds of aircraft that can be flown, and restricted operations at small, rural airports. The exemption also imposes paperwork requirements that necessitate a full-time staff to administer. When Wings of Mercy petitioned for reconsideration and offered safety-enhancing alternatives, the FAA largely denied the request in July 2026.
Federal agencies can no longer get away with ignoring federal law—or adopting an interpretation that most benefits the government. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference and required agencies to follow the “best reading of the statute.” TPPF argues the FAA’s reading of section 821 is not the best reading. Congress’s general command is that reimbursement be allowed. FAA cannot shoehorn all of the exemption’s conditions and limitations in section 821’s training and experience proviso. This case seeks to set aside those conditions that go beyond the law’s scope. In doing so, the case will enforce Congress’s promise that volunteer pilots can be reimbursed for the fuel they use helping patients in need.
Case Documents: