Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case asking it to define "service" under the federal law that lets airlines avoid certain state lawsuits, leaving a split among appeals courts unresolved.
Three justices, in dissent, argued the Court should have taken the case because lower courts disagree sharply on how broadly that law shields airlines from state tort claims like the smoking-policy injury claim at issue here.
How it got here: The Ninth Circuit ruled on what counts as airline "service" under federal pre-emption law, and the losing party asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, which the Court declined to do.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A passenger sued an airline in state court over injuries allegedly linked to the airline's smoking policy. The airline argued the claim was blocked by a federal law that bars state rules "related to a price, route, or service" of an airline. The case reached the Ninth Circuit, which ruled narrowly on what counts as "service" under that law.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have stepped in to settle what "service" means in the federal law that shields airlines from certain state-law claims?
Why it matters
Airlines and injured passengers remain stuck with inconsistent rules depending on which federal circuit hears their case: some courts let personal-injury and other tort suits against airlines proceed, while others say federal law blocks them. Until the Supreme Court resolves the split, the outcome of similar lawsuits may depend on where they are filed.
What changes now
Because the Court denied review, the Ninth Circuit's narrow reading of "service" stands for cases within that circuit, while other circuits keep their broader readings. The underlying lawsuit is unaffected at the Supreme Court level. The circuit split identified by the dissent remains unresolved until the Court agrees to hear a future case raising the same question.
What this does not decide
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and sets no nationwide rule. It does not decide what "service" means under the airline pre-emption law, nor does it resolve the conflict among the appeals courts described in the dissent.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice O'Connor
“Given these opposing interpretations, I believe we should hear this case.”O'Connor's core argument for why the Court should have granted certiorari.
Justice O'Connor argued the Court should have granted review to resolve a clear, well-developed circuit split over the meaning of "service" in the airline pre-emption statute. She noted the issue affects many types of tort suits against airlines nationwide and that both competing interpretations had been thoroughly vetted in en banc appellate rulings, making the case ripe for Supreme Court resolution.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The dissent pointed out that the Supreme Court had twice touched on the scope of the airline pre-emption law but never squarely defined what "service" means, leaving room for lower courts to diverge.
- It noted that the Ninth Circuit, following its own earlier en banc ruling, read "service" narrowly to cover only scheduling and point-to-point transportation, not amenities like meals or baggage handling, and that the Third Circuit agreed with that narrow reading.
- It contrasted this with the Fifth, Fourth, Seventh, and First Circuits, which read "service" broadly to include boarding procedures, food, drink, and baggage handling as part of the contractual features of air travel.
- Because both leading approaches came from full appeals courts sitting en banc and had thoroughly examined the statute's language, history, and purpose, the dissent argued the conflict was ripe and important enough for the Supreme Court to resolve.
- The majority of the Court, without explanation, declined to grant review, leaving the circuit split in place.