American Airlines asks US Supreme Court to reverse ruling barring JetBlue alliance
American Airlines Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Revive JetBlue Alliance Amid Antitrust Backlash
Washington, D.C., March 2025 — by Staff Reporter
American Airlines has taken its high-stakes battle over a terminated partnership with JetBlue Airways to the nation’s highest court, petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a federal ruling that dismantled their controversial Northeast Alliance. In a bold legal maneuver, American aims to reinstate the joint venture, which allowed the two carriers to coordinate routes and share revenues across key Northeastern U.S. markets such as New York and Boston.
The Background of the Northeast Alliance
The Northeast Alliance (NEA), formed during the pandemic era in July 2020 and officially approved in early January 2021 by the Department of Transportation, was designed to boost American Airlines’ competitive position in the crowded Northeastern corridor, traditionally dominated by Delta Air Lines and United. JetBlue, known for its low-cost model and strong regional presence, agreed to synchronize operations with American, the nation’s largest airline, to better compete against industry heavyweights.
The arrangement included code-sharing, slot swaps at congested airports like JFK, LaGuardia, and Logan, and coordinated scheduling. Crucially, it also enabled revenue sharing—essentially allowing the two competitors to act like a single carrier on select routes, optimizing profitability and capacity.
Despite being initially greenlit, the alliance quickly drew the ire of regulators. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Biden administration, filed an antitrust lawsuit in September 2021 in concert with six states. The suit claimed the alliance reduced competition, raised fares, and created a de facto merger in the Northeast without the necessary scrutiny or merger process.
Legal Setbacks and JetBlue’s Retreat
In May 2023, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued a decisive ruling against the airlines, finding the NEA violated federal antitrust laws. The judge concluded the partnership harmed consumers by blurring the lines between two distinct competitors, suppressing the kind of fare wars and service competition that typically benefits travelers.
In response to the decision, JetBlue withdrew from the alliance and simultaneously faced its own legal challenges regarding a proposed $3.8 billion acquisition of Spirit Airlines, which was also opposed by the DOJ and later blocked in court. The failure of both efforts marked a significant strategic setback for JetBlue, which had been seeking ways to grow its footprint beyond the East Coast.
American Airlines, however, was not ready to accept defeat. It appealed the decision, first to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, where the ruling was upheld in November 2024. Now, American is making one final attempt at reviving the alliance—this time through the U.S. Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
In its petition filed in March 2025, American Airlines asserts that the lower court rulings misinterpret the nature and purpose of the alliance. The company argues that the NEA was never meant to eliminate competition but rather to foster it by challenging the dominance of entrenched competitors in key Northeast markets. The petition describes the alliance as a “pro-competitive collaboration” that opened up more travel options for customers and helped accelerate recovery from the pandemic’s devastating impact on the airline industry.
“The Northeast Alliance was designed to increase competition and expand customer options in the Northeast, which it clearly did during the time it was allowed to operate,” the airline said in a public statement.
American also warned that the ruling could have far-reaching implications for other forms of industry collaboration. It expressed concern that striking down the NEA could “wreak havoc on productive collaborations of all shapes and sizes,” potentially stifling innovation and cooperation across sectors that rely on strategic partnerships.
DOJ’s Antitrust Crusade and Political Undercurrents
The case has become a symbol of the DOJ’s aggressive antitrust enforcement under both the Biden and Trump administrations. Although the alliance was approved during the final days of Donald Trump’s first term, the DOJ under his successor took a different view, signaling a shift toward stricter oversight of corporate partnerships perceived to limit consumer choice.
The current DOJ, now under Trump again after his re-election in 2024, has yet to comment on whether it will maintain its previous stance or soften its position given the political change. Still, legal experts note that the case, now squarely in judicial hands, will proceed on precedent and statutory interpretation rather than political preference—at least in theory.
Observers also point out the growing trend of increased regulatory scrutiny, not only in aviation but in tech, healthcare, and agriculture, where partnerships and mergers often trigger antitrust alarms. The NEA case, now poised to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, could become a landmark decision defining the limits of lawful airline coordination for years to come.
Industry Reactions and Market Implications
The aviation industry has reacted with a mix of apprehension and interest. Airlines have long relied on code-sharing and joint ventures to manage route planning, improve aircraft utilization, and expand global reach. Internationally, joint ventures between U.S. and foreign carriers—such as American’s own partnership with British Airways—operate under antitrust immunity granted by regulators.
The fear now is that domestic collaborations could be swept up in a new wave of legal risk. Executives from other major carriers, speaking anonymously, expressed concern that the unraveling of the NEA could undermine future alliances designed to weather rising fuel costs, labor disputes, and fluctuating demand.
“We need to be able to cooperate to survive, especially in volatile markets,” said one senior airline executive. “This case could determine whether or not we have the flexibility to do that in the U.S.”
Wall Street analysts have echoed similar sentiments. Several investment banks downgraded JetBlue’s outlook following its failed Spirit merger and retreat from the NEA, citing weakened market positioning. American, for its part, has faced questions from investors about its legal costs and potential strategic alternatives should the Supreme Court decline to hear the case.
Consumer Advocacy Groups Divided
Consumer advocacy organizations remain split on the issue. Some, like the American Antitrust Institute, praised the DOJ’s actions and the lower court’s rulings, claiming that alliances like the NEA reduce competition and ultimately hurt passengers by limiting choices and keeping fares artificially high.
Others, however, argue that the alliance improved service, particularly during the pandemic recovery. They point to increased frequencies on underserved routes and more flexible ticketing options as tangible benefits that were lost when the alliance was disbanded.
In New York and Boston, frequent fliers have reported noticeable changes. Some complain of reduced connectivity and fewer nonstop options. “When the NEA was in place, I had more choices for morning flights to D.C. and Chicago,” said Daniel Moore, a consultant based in Manhattan. “Now, I’m stuck either paying more or flying at weird hours.”
What’s Next: A Critical Supreme Court Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will take the case. If the justices agree to hear it, oral arguments could take place as early as fall 2025, with a decision potentially arriving in 2026. If the Court declines the case, the lower court’s decision will stand, marking the definitive end of the NEA and reinforcing a legal precedent that may shape airline strategies for years.
Legal scholars are watching closely. “This is a fascinating case because it sits at the crossroads of antitrust enforcement and post-pandemic industry restructuring,” said Professor Elena Saldana, who teaches aviation law at Georgetown University. “The question is whether the courts will see this as a pro-competitive response to a crisis or a collusive move to eliminate rivalry.”
Until the Court makes its move, American Airlines will continue to advocate for what it believes was a mutually beneficial partnership—one that, according to the company, was prematurely dismantled in the name of regulatory overreach.
Conclusion
At its core, the American Airlines case presents a clash between traditional antitrust principles and modern industry realities. With stakes extending well beyond aviation, the outcome could redefine how corporations structure alliances in a competitive, rapidly evolving economic landscape. For travelers, regulators, and executives alike, the skies have never looked more legally turbulent.