Ninth Circuit rules Delta cannot be sued for $7.2 million jury award in restraint case

Quick summary

A federal appeals court wiped out a $7.225 million jury award on September 23, 2026, ruling that Delta Air Lines is immune from civil liability over injuries a passenger sustained when a law enforcement officer restrained him mid-flight. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, for the first time in its jurisdiction, that post-9/11 aviation security immunity extends beyond the crew’s initial suspicious-activity report to cover physical consequences of the law-enforcement response that report set in motion.

The 2-1 decision binds courts across the western United States, including the transpacific gateways at Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. A dissenting judge found the trial evidence sufficient to create genuine disagreement about whether the passenger’s conduct actually appeared suspicious.

Eleven years after a Delta Air Lines crew flagged a passenger on a May 29, 2015 Atlanta-to-Salt Lake City flight, the legal fallout finally settled — and it settled firmly in the airline’s favour. The Ninth Circuit ruled on September 23, 2026 that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act shields Delta not only from liability for the crew’s security report but also from civil claims arising from what happened after a federal law enforcement officer, travelling as a passenger, stepped in to restrain the man.

For anyone flying through LAX, SFO or SEA — the primary transpacific gateways for US, Canadian, European and Australian travellers connecting to Asia-Pacific — the ruling resets the baseline. A passenger who is reported, restrained and injured on a Ninth Circuit flight now faces a substantially narrower path to civil recovery than existed before this decision.

The passenger, travelling with his partner from Buenos Aires to Palm Springs, alleged the restraints cut and bloodied his wrists and temporarily dislocated his left shoulder. A federal jury acquitted him of criminal charges in March 2017. His civil case, filed two months later, produced a $7.225 million jury verdict — which a district court then set aside, a result the Ninth Circuit has now affirmed.

What the Ninth Circuit actually decided

The legal hook is ATSA Section 44941(a) — a statute Congress passed after the September 11 attacks to encourage airline employees to report suspicious behaviour without fear of civil suit. The statutory text protects voluntary disclosures about possible law violations, air piracy, threats to aircraft or passenger safety, and terrorism. What it had never settled, at least in the Ninth Circuit, was whether that protection ends at the moment of the report or travels downstream into the law-enforcement response.

The majority answered: it travels downstream. When a qualifying report triggers a law-enforcement officer’s independent assessment and intervention, injuries flowing from that intervention fall within the same immunity umbrella. The Second and Fifth Circuits had reached comparable conclusions in earlier cases involving other US carriers; the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion now aligns the western US with that national pattern.

Two findings were central to the majority’s reasoning. First, no genuine factual dispute existed over whether the passenger’s behaviour — repeated aisle movements, visits to multiple lavatories, photographing crew, peering through the first-class curtain — would appear suspicious to a reasonable airline employee. Second, the only physical harm he claimed before the officer intervened was a sore backside from an alleged fall, which the court found insufficient to establish a qualifying injury under the Montreal Convention framework.

The dissent, written by Judge Higginson, took the view that the trial record contained enough for reasonable jurors to disagree on the suspicion question — which is precisely why the 2-1 split matters. A one-vote margin leaves the door open for an en banc rehearing petition or a certiorari application to the Supreme Court.

Why the immunity gap matters for passengers with medical needs

The statute is not a blank cheque. ATSA Section 44941 withholds protection when a disclosure was made with actual knowledge that it was false, inaccurate or misleading — or with reckless disregard for its truth. That carve-out survived this case untested, because the majority found the report met the reasonable-suspicion threshold. Future disputes will likely turn on exactly that boundary: whether a crew’s characterisation of a passenger’s behaviour was a good-faith security call or a reckless misread of a medical situation.

That distinction is harder to draw in the cabin than in a courtroom. The FAA recorded 1,163 unruly-passenger reports and initiated 72 enforcement actions through August 2026 alone, according to figures the agency published — a volume that illustrates how frequently crews make rapid judgements about behaviour that could be either threatening or distress-related. Repetitive movement, urgent lavatory requests and visible agitation can look identical whether the cause is anxiety, a chronic condition, or genuine hostility.

The passenger in this case alleged crew initially withheld food and water he needed for HIV medication, triggering the very behaviour that was later reported as suspicious. The Ninth Circuit majority found no evidence of racial or discriminatory animus driving the crew’s actions — but the operational question the ruling leaves unresolved is how airlines should distinguish a security concern from a medical one before escalation, not after.

Protecting yourself on a Ninth Circuit flight

Crew reports now carry legal weight that extends well past the moment they are made — and the window to contest them narrows fast once law enforcement is involved.

• Document medical needs before boarding: If you require food, water or frequent lavatory access for a medical condition, log the request through the airline’s accessibility or special-assistance channel before departure. A timestamped record in the airline’s own system is harder to dismiss than a verbal account after the fact.
• Request assistance explicitly and early: On the aircraft, tell a flight attendant at the start of the flight — not mid-flight when urgency may read as agitation. Use specific language: “I have a medical condition that requires me to eat before taking medication” is clearer than a general request for food.
• Create a contemporaneous record if an interaction escalates: Note the flight number, departure time, seat number, names or physical descriptions of crew involved, and the exact instructions given. If other passengers witness the exchange, ask for contact details. Do this while still on the aircraft.
• Preserve everything after landing: Medical records, pharmacy receipts, boarding passes, and any written or electronic communication with the airline. An aviation-law attorney needs this material to assess whether the false-report exception to ATSA immunity applies.
• Consult an aviation-law attorney before filing: The Ninth Circuit’s ruling narrows — but does not eliminate — civil recourse. Whether the statutory carve-out applies to your specific situation requires a legal assessment, not a general complaint to the DOT.

Watch: The Ninth Circuit docket for an en banc rehearing petition — if the full court agrees to reconsider, the majority’s downstream-immunity rule could be narrowed or reversed, reshaping airline exposure across the western US and its transpacific gateways.

Questions? Answers.