A Significant First Amendment Case: Hoeper v. Air Wisconsin (2014)

In the Hoeper v. Air Wisconsin case of 2014, pilot William Hoeper of the Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation, sued Air Wisconsin in a Colorado state court for defamation under Virginia law. This case was appealed and argued December 9th of 2013 in the Supreme Court and the 6-3 decision was made January 27th of 2014. Prior to the hearing of the case, Hoeper, the pilot, had made four unsuccessful attempts to become certified to fly a different type of aircraft after Air Wisconsin had discontinued Hoeper’s previously piloted type of aircraft. In the middle of Hoeper’s last attempt, the fourth attempt, he abruptly discontinued the test due to his belief that administrators of the test were sabotaging his ability to pass. Following his angry outburst, an administrator booked Hoeper a flight from the Virginia testing center back to his home in Denver. The administrator obtained knowledge of Hoeper’s federal flight deck officer certification, which permits these pilots to carry firearms, however, not as passengers. As a safety precaution, the test administrator called the Transportation Security Administration to notify them of Hoeper’s mental state and the possibility of him being armed. The TSA officials arrested and searched Hoeper due to safety precautions.

In Section 125 of the Aviation Transportation Safety Act, it states that “an air carrier who voluntarily reports suspicious transactions or behavior shall not be ‘civilly liable.’ The immunity does not apply to disclosures made with ‘actual knowledge’ that the disclosure is false, inaccurate, or misleading. Likewise, the immunity does not extend to an air carrier that makes a disclosure with reckless disregard to its truth of falsity,” (Oyez). Air Wisconsin claimed that it was immune from civil liability under ATSA and that Hoeper could not prove “actual malice,” which means publishing a statement while either knowing that it is false or acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity, because their statements were “substantially true” and therefore protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority 6-3 opinion that the ATSA immunity protects false statements, as long as they are not considerably false within the standards of the ATSA context. This means that the potential statements would not affect a rational security officer’s perception of and response to a particular threat. The majority also contends that while Air Wisconsin’s report to the TSA may have contained slight inaccuracies, they would not have influenced a TSA security officer’s desire to investigate Hoeper, given the true statements that he was an FFDO who was depicting potentially dangerous behavior due to the fresh wound of losing his occupation. The Court further argued that the Colorado Supreme Court misjudged the material falsity aspect of the case and that Air Wisconsin was in fact entitled to ATSA immunity according to the law.

In contrast, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote both concurring and dissenting opinions in which he argued that he agreed with the majority’s opinion regarding ATSA immunity analysis, however he would have reconsidered the case for further proceedings. Scalia argued that the issue of material falsity was an important question for the jury and that a rational jury could argue that Hoeper’s behavior did not justify the making of any report to the TSA. Justice Clarence Thomas as well as Justice Elena Kagan also agreed in both concurring and dissenting opinions.

The 6-3 ruling in favor of Air Wisconsin may ready some unfavorable circumstances in which this standard will over-protect defamatory statements. In addition, this ruling may also cause a chilling effect for those in Hoeper’s position regarding defamation. As we discussed in class, public officials, which we can argue that Hoeper is a potential candidate for this label, must have “thicker skin” and must prove intention and reckless disregard of truth. This idea potentially coincides with the over-protection of defamatory statements. Many examples of other rulings regarding the potential over-protection of defamatory statements towards public figures can be seen today as Trump has over 4,000 libel lawsuits and has lost every single one (Warren).

References

"Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-315. Accessed 3 Mar. 2020.

Warren, James. “Why Donald Trump Has Never Won a Libel Case.” Vanity Fair, Vanity Fair, 25 Oct. 2016, www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-has-never-won-a-libel-case.