A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Levi Brake against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the cancellation of its Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) Internship Program. The court ruled that the case is moot because Brake is no longer eligible for the internship after graduating from law school. This decision affects Brake and potentially other students who may seek similar internship opportunities.
The case, Brake v. Bedford, was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 2025-1867. Brake, a former law student, claimed that the FAA's cancellation of the MSI Internship Program for the summer of 2025 was unlawful. He argued that the program was designed to increase the participation of underrepresented students in federal service and the aviation industry. Brake alleged that he was assured he would likely be selected for the internship before being informed of its cancellation.
The dispute began when Brake applied for the MSI Internship Program, which aims to provide opportunities for students from minority-serving institutions. After being told that he would likely be selected, Brake learned in March 2025 that the program was canceled. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the FAA Administrator, seeking a declaratory judgment that the cancellation was contrary to law and requesting that the program be reinstated.
In January 2026, the FAA moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Brake's claims were moot because he sought relief only related to the 2025 internship program. By September 2026, Brake had graduated and informed the court that he had no plans to return to school. This prompted the court to examine how Brake's graduation affected the case's mootness.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly presided over the case and ultimately ruled that Brake's lawsuit was moot. The court stated, "events have so transpired that the decision will neither presently affect [his] rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future." The ruling emphasized that Brake's graduation meant he was no longer eligible for the internship program, which was intended for students.
The court noted that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only resolve actual, ongoing controversies. Since Brake was no longer a student, the court found that he lacked a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the case. The judge also referenced past cases where claims were dismissed as moot when the plaintiffs no longer had a stake in the outcome.
Brake attempted to argue that the case was not moot because the FAA's actions had ongoing effects. However, the court found that Brake's lack of eligibility for the internship program meant he had no continuing interest in whether it was reinstated. The court also rejected Brake's claim that the case fell under the exception for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review," stating that he did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of becoming a student again.
This ruling has implications for similar cases in the future. It highlights the importance of maintaining eligibility for programs when seeking legal recourse. The decision may deter other former students from pursuing litigation over similar internship programs if they are no longer eligible to participate.
Looking ahead, Brake's case cannot be appealed as it has been dismissed. There are no related cases pending that would address similar issues regarding the MSI Internship Program or the FAA's policies. The ruling serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by individuals seeking legal remedies after their eligibility for specific programs has changed.