Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

Background

William Hoeper was a pilot for Air Wisconsin who failed a required simulator test and faced losing his job. Airline officials learned he was a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), meaning he had been authorized to carry a firearm. After an angry outburst in training, an airline manager called the TSA and said Hoeper was an FFDO who may be armed, that the airline was concerned about his mental stability and the whereabouts of his firearm, and that an unstable pilot was terminated. TSA removed and searched him; he later sued for defamation.

Reasoning

The Court examined the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which shields airlines from civil liability for voluntary reports to authorities unless the report was made with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth. The Justices said that this actual-malice language includes a material-falsity requirement: a report loses immunity only if a falsehood was likely to change how a reasonable security officer would respond. The Colorado courts did not apply that materiality test, so the Supreme Court reviewed the record itself.

Real world impact

Applying the materiality test, the Court concluded that any imprecise or partly incorrect words in the airline’s call were not material. A reasonable TSA officer, told that an FFDO had ‘‘blown up’’ in training and faced imminent firing, would still want to investigate whether he was armed. The Court reversed Colorado’s judgment and held Air Wisconsin entitled to ATSA immunity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined in part by Justices Thomas and Kagan) agreed on the legal standard but dissented about deciding materiality on appeal, arguing a jury could find the ‘‘mental stability’’ label materially false and that the question should return to the lower courts.