Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.

In a post-9/11 America, a victory for 'see something, say something'

Courts and the JudiciaryPersonal Weapon ControlJustice SystemInterior PolicySeptember 11, 2001 Attacks

This week the Supreme Court overturned a $1.2-million verdict awarded to a pilot who sued his employer for telling the Transportation Security Administration that he might be armed and mentally unstable. Because the decision was based on a 2001 law providing immunity to airline officials who report suspicious behavior, it can be portrayed as another example of the post-9/11 trade-off between security and individual rights (in this case a right to one’s good name).

But that’s too narrow a reading. The legal principles underlying the ruling make sense in other contexts.

The most important of these is that in defamation cases, the defendant is protected if the statement he made about the plaintiff was “materially true.”

The statement at issue in this case was a telephone call in which an official at Air Wisconsin told the TSA that he was concerned about the mental stability of one of its pilots, William Hoeper, and the whereabouts of Hoeper’s gun. Hoeper had failed a proficiency test and faced the loss of his job, and he reportedly “blew up” in frustration at an instructor. Because of the tip, Hoeper was removed as a passenger from an airplane at Dulles Airport. After authorities determined there was no threat, he was allowed to leave on a later flight.

Hoeper sued the airline and convinced a jury that its characterization of his behavior was defamatory. But the judge didn’t tell the jurors that the airline would be immune to judgment if its statement about Hoeper was “materially true.”

All nine justices agreed that was an error. Six concluded that the statement was materially true — meaning that it described “the gist” of the situation involving Hoeper’s outburst, his access to a firearm and the fact that he faced dismissal from his job. Three others would have returned the case to a lower court so a jury could address the truth issue. But that disagreement aside, all nine justices believed a defendant can’t be held liable for a statement that is basically true, even if there are “minor inaccuracies.” That’s an important reaffirmation of a principle that is relevant to all libel cases.

The other takeaway from the decision, which arises in a post-9/11 context but has broader implications, is that well-intentioned people who want to alert police or security agencies about possible threats shouldn’t be deterred by the fear of a libel suit.

Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: “Congress meant to give air carriers the ‘breathing space’ to report potential threats to security officials without fear of civil liability for a few inaptly chosen words.”

The courts should extend the same breathing space to citizens who report other sorts of disturbing behavior, even if they have nothing to do with airlines or air travel.


State of the Union: Obama's era of limits

State of the Union: A call for collaboration by the president

How the Democrats can win back the House and keep the Senate -- in 6 steps

Follow Michael McGough on Twitter @MichaelMcGough3

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Courts and the JudiciaryPersonal Weapon ControlJustice SystemInterior PolicySeptember 11, 2001 Attacks
  • Another thing the Supreme Court can't agree on

    Maybe you were in a cave and missed the news: The Supreme Court came back from summer recess  Oct. 5 and surprised a lot of folks by denying five petitions for writs of certiorari related to same-sex marriage.  The court's "no" amounted to a "yes" – by...

  • Who's staying in that hotel?
    Who's staying in that hotel?

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of an L.A. city ordinance that gives police easy access to hotel records and punishes hotel managers who don't hand them over with fines or jail time. The justices should agree with a lower court that the ordinance...

  • How to diversify the Ivy League club that is the Supreme Court

    Easy for them to say, since they’re already on the Supreme Court, but three justices agreed the other day that the court isn’t diverse enough. In a forum at their alma mater, Yale Law School, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the court would benefit if...

  • Supreme Court should put a stop to the relentless attacks on abortion

    In 1973, the Supreme Court held in Roe vs. Wade that women have a fundamental, constitutional right to an abortion, as long as that right is balanced against the state's interest in protecting prenatal life and a woman's health. In 1992, a second decision held that although the...

  • Police need to know the laws they enforce

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" — except when you're a police officer. That's essentially the argument the state of North Carolina made to the U.S. Supreme Court last week when it defended the drug conviction of a man whose car was stopped by police based on a...

  • Pay workers for time spent at security checkpoint

    Imagine you've finished your shift, left your workstation, and as you exit the building you have to wait an additional 20 or 25 minutes to clear a security checkpoint set up by your employer to ensure that you aren't stealing anything. Should you be paid for that time as part of...

  • Supreme Court should give half an inch on inmate's beard

    When it ruled this year that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation, had a religious right to refuse to include contraception in its employee health insurance plans, the Supreme Court pushed an important principle to unreasonable extremes. But the principle itself — that government...

  • Let's lift the Supreme Court's veil of secrecy

    Every year the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are faced with about 7,500 writs of certiorari seeking appellate review of lower court decisions, granting only 75 to 80. It takes four justices to grant a writ, though amazingly that rule is nowhere written down and the justices could change...