Date Filed: September 28, 2026
Original Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Case Status: Pending
Jeremy Rivers is a pilot who volunteers with Wings of Mercy’s East Michigan chapter. Wings of Mercy is a network of volunteer pilots that fly 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.
FAA regulations allow a private pilot to receive a pro-rata reimbursement for the costs of a flight. That means if a pilot flies with one passenger, the pilot can be reimbursed for half of the flight’s costs. If a pilot flies with three passengers, the pilot can be reimbursed up to three-quarters of the flight’s costs. But FAA has layered on several additional requirements by interpretation—not by amending the regulation—that make this type of reimbursement unavailable to volunteer pilots.
Three specific interpretations preclude reimbursement. The “common purpose” test requires the pilot and passenger to share a purpose for the flight. FAA says that is not possible when the patient chooses the destination medical facility. FAA also requires the pro-rata reimbursement come from the passengers, not a third party such as a charity. Finally, FAA’s definition of “compensation” is so broad that it treats logging flight time, or even a free meal, as compensation that triggers commercial regulations.
The cost is real. In July 2026, Rivers paid $460 to fly part of a Wings of Mercy mission to the Mayo Clinic. Wings of Mercy had the funds and would have reimbursed him, but the FAA’s interpretations stood in the way. So long as those interpretations remain in force, fewer pilots will be available to help transport patients in need.
TPPF argues these interpretations find no support in the regulation’s text and are not in accordance with law. Although the 2024 case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended Chevron deference, the FAA still claims a related doctrine—Auer deference—that lets an agency win on interpretations of its own regulations even when they are not the best reading. Rivers’s case seeks to vacate the three unlawful interpretations and to overturn Auer deference. Overturning Auer will restore the principle that agencies must follow the best reading of their own regulations—not the interpretation most convenient or most beneficial to the agency.
Case Documents: