Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

Breaking News :

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

Academic highlight: The states arguing as amici curiae in the Supreme Court – Dan Schweitzer

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Ask the author: “So Long, Earl” – Andrew Hamm

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

May 2019

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of May 16, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-315	Colo.	Dec 9, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Jan 27, 2014	9-0	Sotomayor	OT 2013

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.

Holding: Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, airlines and their employees are immune from civil liability for reporting suspicious behavior, but – pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 44941(b) – that immunity is not available for disclosures “made with actual knowledge that the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading” or “with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that disclosure.” Immunity under the ATSA may not be denied under Section 44941(b) without a determination that a disclosure was materially false. applies to materially true statements.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 27, 2014. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas and Justice Kagan joined.

Opinion analysis: Court bolsters statutory protection for air safety tipsters (Cristina Tilley)
Argument recap: Weighing how carefully airlines must choose their words when reporting safety threats (Cristina Tilley)
Argument preview: Revisiting the balance between speech and reputation in the context of airline security (Cristina Tilley)
Solicitor General files invitation briefs for June 13 Conference (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 3 2012	Application (12A18) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 22, 2012 to August 22, 2012, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Jul 6 2012	Application (12A18) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until August 22, 2012.
Aug 7 2012	Application (12A18) to extend further the time from August 22, 2012 to September 12, 2012, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Aug 9 2012	Application (12A18) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until September 12, 2012.
Sep 11 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2012)
Oct 1 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner, and counsel for the respondents .
Oct 10 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 14, 2012.
Oct 12 2012	Brief amicus curiae of John L. Mica filed.
Oct 15 2012	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Oct 15 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed.
Oct 15 2012	Brief amicus curiae of International Air Transport Association filed.
Nov 14 2012	Brief of respondent William L. Hoeper in opposition filed.
Nov 27 2012	Reply of petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation filed.
Nov 28 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.
Jan 7 2013	The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
May 17 2013	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
May 28 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.
May 28 2013	Supplemental brief of respondent William L. Hoeper filed. (Distributed)
Jun 17 2013	Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Whether ATSA immunity may be denied without a determination that the air carrier's disclosure was materially false.
Jul 10 2013	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2013.
Jul 10 2013	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 25, 2013.
Jul 31 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Aug 7 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Aug 29 2013	Joint appendix filed (3 volumes.) (Statement of costs filed.)
Aug 29 2013	Brief of petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation filed.
Sep 4 2013	Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Representative John L. Mica filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amici curiae of Airlines for America, et al. filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amicus curiae of International Air Transport Association filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Coalition filed.
Sep 5 2013	Brief amici curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 17 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday December 9, 2013.
Sep 17 2013	CIRCULATED
Oct 23 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Oct 25 2013	Brief of respondent William L. Hoeper filed. (Distributed)
Nov 18 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Nov 25 2013	Reply of petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation filed. (Distributed)
Dec 9 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Jonathan F. Cohn, Washington, D. C.; and Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Kevin K. Russell, Washington, D. C.
Dec 12 2013	Record received from Supreme Court of Colorado. (3 Boxes)
Jan 27 2014	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, Thomas, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, and III-A. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Feb 21 2014	Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 26 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 21, 2014.
Mar 24 2014	Rehearing DENIED.
Mar 24 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Mar 27 2014	Record returned to Supreme Court of Colorado. (3 Boxes)

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: The states arguing as amici curiae in the Supreme Court – Dan Schweitzer

Relist Watch – John Elwood

Ask the author: “So Long, Earl” – Andrew Hamm
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their May 23 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Herrera v. Wyoming Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht “Clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would not have approved a change to a drug’s label – thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim – is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.
- Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- al-Alwi v. Trump (1) Whether the government’s statutory authority to detain Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi has unraveled; (2) whether, alternatively, the government’s statutory authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because the conflict in which he was captured has ended; and (3) whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes, and the Constitution permits, detention of an individual who was not “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to his capture.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 70

Cases decided 32

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Merits Docket OT18 (May 20, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions
Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	70
Cases decided	32
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	73

9
Conference

13
Orders
Opinions

16
Conference

20
Orders
Opinions

23
Conference

30
Conference