Gustosomerset I am delighted to see that these interpretations are receiving greater exposure. They are not however administrative law judge decisions, or legal judgements as you call them, but opinions issued by the Office of Chief Counsel for FAA.
The originating interpretation on this theme, referred to in the linked Grossman opinion, was given to Andrew Krausz on 22 Mar 2012 by Rebecca B MacPherson acting as the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. The important bit from that opinion is:
The AAIB draws the conclusion ...
that any and all limitations and restrictions that a pilot would be subject
to under his foreign pilot certificate are incorporated in his US certificate, and apply equally
under his US certificate. This conclusion is mistaken.
There is an open question on how expired ratings, still listed in section XII of both the ICAO-compliant licence and the US airman certificate, are treated. For example, as all pilots who acquire a fresh 61.75 certificate learn (sooner or later), the successful completion of an FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency award program or a flight review, absent some qualifying proficiency check or test from a US
examiner, is required by 14 CFR 61.56 prior to acting as pilot-in-command. This position has been clarified in an interpretation to John D Collins of 4 Apr 2013 given by Mark W Bury as the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division:
In your letter, you cite the language in § 61.75(b) indicating that the holder of a foreign
license issued by a contracting state to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may
be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate based on the foreign pilot license without any
further showing of proficiency. This language should not be viewed as extending beyond
issuance of a certificate to other regulatory requirements such as flight reviews under §
61.56 or recent experience requirements under § 61.57. Section 61.75 speaks only to
demonstrating proficiency for the purpose of obtaining a U.S. certificate, not requirements
for serving as pilot in command of an aircraft once a U.S. certificate has been issued.
In fact 14 CFR 61.56 is not relevant to the topic and I have used this Collins interpretation purely to draw in the issue of 14 CFR 61.57: Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. Take for example the instrument experience required by 14 CFR 61.57(c). There is no question that this paragraph applies to 61.75 holders whose certificate includes an instrument rating. But if it applies, does it apply to the exclusion of the limitation on the validity of the foreign instrument rating? In her interpretation MacPherson offers further relevant insight:
While 14 C.F.R. 61.75 does incorporate the limitations and restriction "on the person's US
certificate and foreign pilot license," (emphasis added) that language refers to the scope of
the authority reflected by the certificate itself. In other words, the pilot is subject to the
restrictions and limitations that appear on the face of the US certificate or foreign pilot
license. The language does not include the entirety of regulatory requirements of the foreign
State since the holder of the § 61.75 certificate is bound by the US regulatory requirements to
exercise the privileges of the US certificate. The FAA views that language as addressing the
limitations of the sort FAA uses, e.g., "not valid for night operation," where the individual
has not completed the night training requirements.
It is not at all clear whether ratings listed in section XII of a US private pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR 61.75 depend upon the validity of their 'parent' ratings as recorded in the certificate of revalidation. Is a certificate of revalidation even considered to be part of the foreign license (sic)? One view is that the recent experience requirements in 14 CFR 61.57 are necessary and sufficient for acting as pilot-in-command, and another might hold that an expiration date given on a certificate of revalidation constitutes a limitation on the foreign license (sic).