The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that grants Delta Air Lines immunity from liability in a case involving passenger Atef Bandary. The court ruled on September 23, 2026, that Delta was not responsible for injuries Bandary sustained during a flight after his behavior raised concerns among other passengers. This decision is significant as it clarifies the application of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) regarding airline liability and passenger safety.
Atef Bandary, the plaintiff in this case, alleged that he suffered physical and emotional injuries due to the actions taken by Delta's flight attendants and a federal law enforcement agent during a domestic flight. The dispute arose when Bandary's behavior on the flight was reported as suspicious, leading to a physical confrontation and his eventual restraint. This ruling affects not only Bandary but also sets a precedent for how airlines can handle perceived threats from passengers in the future.
The case began when Bandary was on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Salt Lake City on May 29, 2015. During the flight, several passengers, including an off-duty pilot, reported concerns about Bandary's behavior to flight attendants. The lead flight attendant, Joy Rodemoyer, approached Bandary after consulting with the aircraft's captain. The situation escalated into a physical altercation, prompting Rodemoyer to call for assistance from a federal law enforcement agent on board. Bandary claimed he sustained injuries during the restraint that followed.
Initially, a jury found in favor of Bandary, awarding him $7.2 million for his injuries. However, the district court later vacated this verdict, granting summary judgment in favor of Delta. The court ruled that Delta was immune from liability under the ATSA, which protects airlines from civil liability when they report suspicious behavior to law enforcement. The ATSA was enacted to encourage airlines to report potential threats without fear of legal repercussions.
The court's ruling emphasized that the ATSA grants immunity not only for the initial disclosure of suspicious behavior but also for any actions taken by law enforcement as a result of that disclosure. Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, writing for the panel, stated, "The ATSA’s text immunizes against ‘any’ laws, not just those akin to defamation." This interpretation aligns with decisions made in other circuits, reinforcing the idea that airlines should be protected when reporting potential threats.
Judge Nguyen further explained that the evidence presented showed no genuine dispute regarding whether Bandary's behavior was suspicious. The court noted that Bandary's actions, including pacing the aisles and peering into the first-class cabin, were enough to warrant concern from flight attendants and passengers alike. The ruling concluded that Bandary could not recover for his physical injuries or emotional distress under the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability for passenger injuries.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Bandary's case. It clarifies the extent of immunity provided to airlines under the ATSA, potentially influencing how airlines respond to perceived threats in the future. The decision may encourage flight crews to report suspicious behavior without hesitation, knowing they are protected from civil liability. This ruling could affect future cases involving airline liability and passenger safety, as it sets a precedent that reinforces the importance of reporting suspicious activities.
Looking ahead, Bandary's legal options appear limited. The Ninth Circuit's ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it remains unclear if Bandary will pursue this route. There are no related cases currently pending that directly address this issue in the same context. The court's decision highlights the ongoing complexities surrounding airline liability and passenger safety in the aviation industry.