Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper
134 S. Ct. 852
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Hoeper, Air Wisconsin pilot, needed BAe-146 certification after other attempts failed; final opportunity was granted with imminent job loss if unsuccessful.
- During simulator training Hoeper reacted angrily, tossing a headset and using profanity, prompting internal reporting.
- Air Wisconsin officials discussed threats, including FFDO status and potential armed risk; Doyle contacted TSA.
- Air Wisconsin reported to TSA that Hoeper was an FFDO who may be armed and that he was terminated today; TSA halted Hoeper’s flight, searched him, and later Denver reassurances followed; Hoeper was fired the next day.
- Colorado courts held ATSA immunity did not apply due to recklessness or material falsity; Supreme Court reversed, holding immunity cannot be denied to materially true statements and remanded.
- Remand proceedings will consider whether Air Wisconsin’s statements were materially true and whether immunity applies under ATSA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATSA immunity denial without material falsity determination | Hoeper—immunity should be denied if statements are reckless or false | Air Wisconsin—immunity may be denied only for materially false statements | Immunity may not be denied without material falsity |
| Material falsity standard in ATSA context | Material falsity requires false statements that would change TSA response | Materiality not satisfied by statements that are substantially true but reckless | Material falsity is required for ATSA immunity to be defeated |
| Were Air Wisconsin’s statements to TSA materially false? | Statements about mental stability and termination were false or misleading | Statements were not material to TSA decision; gist accurate | No material falsehood; immunity applies |
| Appropriate application of the Masson materiality standard to ATSA | ATSA should follow defamation materiality as to reader impact | ATSA materiality considers TSA officer’s assessment and response | ATSA materiality is determined by potential effect on TSA response; not defamation strict standard |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice requires falsity; materiality follows falsity rule)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (material falsity; minor inaccuracies allowed if gist preserved)
- Philadelphia News- papers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1986) (falsity required for public-issue defamation)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice requires falsity; strict standard for defamation)
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975) (implicit respect for truth; defense of immunity literature)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (defers to jury on mixed questions of law and fact)