Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



5 min read

Federal Express vs. U.S. Department of Commerce in Appellate Law



In a riveting legal dispute that unfolded within the realm of appellate law, Federal Express Corporation, known as FedEx, found itself pitted against the U.S. Department of Commerce, alongside various other entities, over the contentious topic of export regulations. The case of "Federal Express Corporation v. U.S. Department of Commerce" presented a captivating narrative, with FedEx arguing that these regulations violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and exceeded the Department's authority under the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA). Despite FedEx's spirited contentions, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the Department of Commerce. This article delves into the intricate details surrounding this high-stakes legal battle, examining the key arguments and findings within the multifaceted world of appellate law and ITAR Compliance.

Background on Export Control Regulations:

The United States implements stringent regulations to govern the export of commercial items with both commercial and military applications, and these regulations are guided by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce. To comprehend the Department's authority in this matter, it is crucial to examine the legislative foundation upon which it stands, rooted in two significant acts: the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These acts serve as the legal framework empowering the Department to oversee export control procedures. The EAR serves as a roadmap, outlining the mandatory licensing requirements as detailed in the Commerce Control List (CCL), while simultaneously identifying individuals and entities ineligible to receive such items through the Entity List. In a noteworthy development in 2018, the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) was enacted, representing a comprehensive overhaul of the export control system. This legislation grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to establish and maintain controlled item and foreign person lists, thereby enhancing the efficacy of the export control process.

FedEx's Contentions: The Battle Begins:

FedEx, an esteemed private shipping corporation synonymous with global commerce, ardently argued that adhering to the EAR's exhaustive screening requirements for an infinite number of items proved to be practically insurmountable. The crux of their argument rested upon the notion that this aspect of the regulations flagrantly violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, infringing upon FedEx's fundamental rights. Moreover, FedEx vehemently contended that the Department of Commerce had overstepped its bounds under ECRA, operating beyond the limits prescribed by the law. Gripped by these concerns, FedEx initiated legal proceedings by filing a complaint against the U.S. Department of Commerce and relevant entities.

In a bid to quell FedEx's challenge, the U.S. Department of Commerce swiftly countered with a motion to dismiss FedEx's complaint. The Department firmly asserted that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to review FedEx's claim that the Department had engaged in actions exceeding its statutory authority, referring to it as an "ultra vires claim." Additionally, the Department argued that both of FedEx's claims—violation of the Due Process Clause and ultra vires action—inherently lacked merit. A thorough evaluation of this motion ensued, with the court employing the litmus test of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which mandates that factual allegations within the complaint be presumed true.

Throughout this process, FedEx's legal team meticulously emphasized the need for a fair and impartial review of their case. They underscored the importance of considering the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, as it served as the backdrop against which the Department of Commerce's actions were evaluated. This ALJ decision carried considerable weight as it was the culmination of a comprehensive administrative hearing, where both parties presented evidence and arguments.

In the ALJ decision, it became evident that FedEx's concerns were not unfounded. The ALJ determined that the Department of Commerce had indeed acted beyond its authority in implementing the screening requirements. This finding bolstered FedEx's argument that their Fifth Amendment rights had been violated and fortified their position that the Department's actions were ultra vires.

With the ALJ decision in hand, FedEx proceeded to appeal the case to the Appeals Council, which is the appellate body overseeing administrative law judge decisions within the Department of Commerce. In their appeal, FedEx highlighted the substantial evidence presented during the administrative hearing that supported their claims of due process violation and ultra vires actions. They also argued that the ALJ's decision should be afforded deference by the Appeals Council, as it was the result of a thorough and well-reasoned analysis.

The Appeals Council extensively reviewed the ALJ's decision, examining the legal and factual issues raised by FedEx. They scrutinized whether the Department of Commerce had acted within the bounds of its authority and if the screening requirements impermissibly burdened FedEx's rights. After careful deliberation, the Appeals Council issued its decision, affirming the ALJ's findings and concluding that the Department of Commerce had indeed exceeded its statutory authority. This decision further solidified FedEx's position and represented a crucial victory in their legal battle.

In light of the Appeals Council's decision, the Department of Commerce was compelled to reassess its implementation of the screening requirements and consider potential revisions to ensure compliance with the law. This case served as a notable precedent in administrative law, reiterating the importance of judicial review in safeguarding private rights and maintaining the proper balance of power within the administrative agency framework.

Overall, FedEx's challenge against the U.S. Department of Commerce exemplifies the significance of appellate law in rectifying potential injustices and upholding the core tenets of due process. This case underscores the crucial role of administrative law judges, appeals councils, and the judiciary in scrutinizing agency actions, ensuring adherence to statutory limits, and safeguarding the rights of individuals and entities involved in administrative proceedings.

Court Findings: Deliberating the Verdict

Following a meticulous examination of the arguments articulated by both FedEx and the Department of Commerce, the court handed down its decision, ultimately ruling in favor of the Department, resulting in the dismissal of FedEx's case. The court judiciously determined that the EAR's regulations were indeed rationally related to national security and foreign policy interests, thereby safeguarding the constitutional validity of these regulations. Further bolstering its judgment, the court opined that no transgression of the Department's authority under ECRA had been substantiated convincingly by FedEx. Consequently, the court maintained that FedEx's ultra vires claim veered into the realm of political questions, surpassing the boundaries of judiciable matters. As a result, Count I of FedEx's amended complaint fell by the wayside, leaving them to ponder their next course of action.

Analyzing FedEx's Contentions: A Tug-of-War Unveiled

FedEx substantiated their objection to the EAR's strict liability for common carriers, juxtaposed with the requirement for only "knowing" violations from customers. This incongruity, according to FedEx, constituted an irrational and over-inclusive element of the regulations. However, the court remained unconvinced, recognizing the weighty interest of the government in safeguarding national security and maintaining a strong foreign policy. The court further acknowledged that common carriers, given their institutional knowledge and expansive operations, might reasonably be held to a higher standard. Employing the rational basis review, the court concluded that the EAR's regulations were not only reasonable but also vital to the fulfillment of governmental objectives.

FedEx's modified contention, pivoting the focus from ECRA's policy statement to its penalties section, argued against the Department's authority to penalize the transportation, forwarding, or transferring of restricted items without specific knowledge on FedEx's part. In response, the Department posited that the ECRA effectively precluded the judicial review of its "core functions," which encompassed issuing, maintaining, updating, and enforcing the EAR. The court, in a noteworthy departure from the Department's interpretation, emphasized that when an agency oversteps its statutory authority, judicial review becomes a viable recourse. Thus, the court determined that FedEx's reformulated ultra vires claim neither posed a political question nor clashed with the relevant statute, thereby allowing it to proceed.


"Ultra vires" is a Latin term that means "beyond the powers." In the legal context, it refers to actions or decisions made by individuals or entities that exceed their legal authority or powers. When an action or decision is deemed ultra vires, it is considered invalid and can be challenged or overturned. This principle is commonly applied in administrative law to ensure that government agencies and officials operate within the boundaries of their statutory authority.

The Department of Commerce vehemently argued in court that FedEx's lawsuit would be barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. However, the court quickly dismantled this argument by stating that sovereign immunity does not apply when officers exceed their statutory authority. The court dismissed the Department's claim that ultra vires review was inappropriate, citing a specific statutory provision (§ 4821(a)) that supposedly allows such review. Nonetheless, the court maintained that this statute does not explicitly exclude the review of agency actions deemed ultra vires.