Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S. P. A. v. Lisi
Headline: Equally divided Court affirms lower-court judgment in dispute involving the airline Alitalia and Lisi and others, leaving the appeals court’s decision intact without a controlling majority opinion.
Holding: The judgments are affirmed by an equally divided Court; Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
- Leaves the lower-court ruling in place for these parties.
- Produces no signed Supreme Court majority opinion clarifying the law.
- Shows foreign governments and industry groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs.
Summary
Background
An Italian airline, Alitalia, brought a case that reached the Supreme Court after a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case was argued before the Justices on March 11, 1968, and decided on March 25, 1968. Many outside parties filed friend-of-the-court briefs, including the United Kingdom, Canada, the Republic of Italy, and airline industry and passenger associations.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court issued a short, unsigned decision stating simply that the judgments are affirmed by an equally divided Court. That means the Justices were evenly split and the Court did not issue a signed majority opinion explaining a new rule. The opinion notes that Justice Marshall did not take part in considering or deciding the case.
Real world impact
Because the Justices were equally divided, the practical result is that the lower court’s judgment remains in place for the parties in this case. The Supreme Court’s action did not produce a new nationwide explanation of the law in this opinion, so questions unresolved by the appeals court remain without a Supreme Court majority ruling.
Dissents or concurrances
The Court’s brief entry lists many amici urging either reversal or affirmance, but no separate dissenting or concurring opinions are reported in this short per curiam disposition, and Justice Marshall did not participate.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?