Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Transportation — ATSA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 27, 2014//

Transportation — ATSA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 27, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Transportation — ATSA

Immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) covers materially true statements from a libel suit.

The ATSA immunity exception is patterned after the actual malice standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, which requires material falsity. See, e.g., Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U. S. 496, 517. Because the material falsity requirement was settled when the ATSA was enacted, Congress presumably meant to incorporate it into the ATSA’s immunity exception and did not mean to deny ATSA immunity to true statements made recklessly. This presumption is not rebutted by other indicia of statutory meaning. Section 44941(b)(1) requires falsity, and §44941(b)(2) simply extends the immunity exception from knowing falsehoods to reckless ones. Denying immunity for substantially true reports, on the theory that the person making the report had not yet gathered enough information to be certain of its truth, would defeat the purpose of ATSA immunity: to ensure that air carriers and their employees do not hesitate to provide the TSA with needed information.

Reversed and remanded.

12-315 Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

Sotomayor, J.; Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests