October Term 2013 · Docket 12-315

Does airline immunity require materially false statements?

Airlines seek to limit defamation liability for security reports. Passengers argue truth alone should not shield false claims.

Official caption
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Cohn stated truth matters for immunity.

    Feigin emphasized the scope of protection.

    Kennedy questioned the clarity of the issue.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of airline immunity under the Air Transportation Security Act. The dispute centers on whether a statement must be materially false to lose protection.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Air Wisconsin wants immunity for true statements.

Hoeper wants liability for false statements.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Cohn argues truth should preserve immunity.

Feigin argues materiality defines the scope.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Kennedy asked about real-time reporting needs.

Scalia asked what material falsity sustains.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This defines the boundary of airline legal protection. It balances security reporting against passenger reputation rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON