No. 22-7664

Forest Mitchell Kirst v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-05-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law agency-investigation congressional-intent criminal-procedure due-process federal-agency federal-jurisdiction obstruction-of-justice statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Arbitration
Latest Conference: 2023-06-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1505 applies to accident investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an agency that has no power to take enforcement or regulatory action as a result of the accident investigation

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question Presented The question presented here addresses the extent to which 18 U.S.C § 1505 applies to accident investigations by the National Transportation and Safety Board (“NTSB”)., an agency that has no power to take enforcement or regulatory action as a result of the accident investigation. § 1505 imposes criminal punishment on anyone who, inter alia, “corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States.” (emphasis added). NTSB is a federal agency charged with investigating the cause of all aircraft accidents. As an accident investigator, NTSB has a variety of tools to gather information, including administering oath to witnesses, issuing subpoenas for witnesses and evidence, and enforcing those subpoenas through civil action. But NTSB lacks authority to take any action beyond its investigation, such as impose any penalty or sanction on a person found 1 liable or issue regulations prescribing changes in the conduct of aviation or pilots. The question presented for review is whether the phrase “the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had” in § 1505 applies to accident investigations by NTSB? This is an issue on which the Ninth Circuit issued a divided published opinion. United States v. Kirst, 54 F. 4» 610, 619-23, but see Id at 624-34 (9th Cir. 2022). Other lower federal courts also split on the issue of whether proceedings before an agency that lacks regulatory or enforcement authority over the results of its investigation are covered by § 1505. ii

Docket Entries

2023-06-26
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
2023-06-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-05-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 29, 2023)

Attorneys

Forest Kirst
Gene David VorobyovLaw Office of Gene Vorobyov, Petitioner
Gene David VorobyovLaw Office of Gene Vorobyov, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent