“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A passenger claimed he was injured by actions of airline employees
What happened in this case?
Atef Bandary was a passenger on a Delta Airlines domestic flight. Complaints from another passenger resulted in flight attendants seeking to restrain Bandary , a report to a law enforcement officer on the plane, and a physical altercation with him. He claimed he was injured as a result by the Delta employees’ conduct and filed suit against Delta. A jury awarded him over $7 million in damages.
The district court, however, vacated the judgment and granted summary judgment to Delta, determining that it was immune under a federal law that grants airlines and their employees such immunity from damages for reporting “suspicious behavior” to law enforcement authorities. Bandary appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
In September, Trump judge Daniel Bress cast the deciding vote to affirm the decision for Delta in Bandary v Delta Air Lines. Obama judge Jacquelyn Nguyen wrote the opinion while Obama judge Stephen Higginson dissented. The majority maintained that summary judgment was appropriate because there was “no genuine dispute” that Bandary’s behavior was “suspicious.”
Why did Judge Higginson dissent?
The primary objection of Judge Higginson, who usually sits on the Fifth Circuit, was to the conclusion that there was no dispute of material fact as to whether Bandary was acting suspiciously. On the contrary, Higginson wrote, the jury had specifically concluded in a special verdict that Bandary had not acted suspiciously. At the very least, Judge Higginson concluded, the verdict plus other evidence in the record created a “triable issue of fact” as to whether Bandary engaged in suspicious activity and summary judgment for Delta was thus erroneous.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bress obviously harmed Atef Bandary, depriving him of damages for the injuries that a jury had found were caused by Delta employees. It also sets a bad precedent concerning damages claims against airlines and their immunity from such claims, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.