Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"The Southwest [Airlines] representative responded with alarm and declared 'you said the "b" word, you said the "b" word.'"

"The Southwest [Airlines] representative responded with alarm and declared 'you said the "b" word, you said the "b" word.'" When an airline's employee whose job it is to book travel reservations over the telephone concludes the call by asking whether the customer has any "comments, questions, or suggestions," it's probably best if the customer does not offer security-related advice on how airlines can reduce the risk of in-flight bombings. At least that seems to be the lesson of a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

The majority in today's ruling reinstates a pro se litigant's lawsuit claiming that, as a result of the call, he became the subject of unlawful government monitoring. Cassandra Sturkie Bernstein of Latham and Watkins argued the case as court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the plaintiff-appellant. We mention her because she has a cool name, she has apparently spent some time pursuing her education in Australia, and, in an obvious homage to "Boston Legal," she has worked on litigation involving "mad cow" disease.

Full post as published by How Appealing on February 20, 2009 (boomark / email).