What Happened
Congress is reportedly weighing an aviation safety bill known as the ALERT Act, which was introduced earlier in 2025 in response to a deadly midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. According to reporting, that January 2025 crash between a U.S. Army helicopter and a commercial airliner killed all 67 people on board the two aircraft.
The bill itself is focused on aviation safety, but a late amendment has drawn criticism. As reported, the amendment would bar the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) data — a signal aircraft transmit to help avoid mid-air collisions — for purposes like collecting airport landing fees or enforcing state and local taxes on aircraft owners.
Supporters of the amendment, including a national pilots' advocacy group, reportedly argue that a safety system should not be repurposed as a revenue tool. Opponents counter that the change could effectively function as a tax shelter for private jet owners. Reporting suggests that Texas alone could lose an estimated $70 million a year in aircraft-related tax revenue if the amendment passes, in part because some owners are alleged to register jets out of state — often in Montana — to avoid local property taxes.
The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its September return.
Why It Matters Legally
On its surface, this looks like a tax and aviation-policy debate. But for anyone who follows personal injury and wrongful death law, there are several threads worth watching.
First, the ALERT Act itself grew out of a mass-casualty aviation event. When a crash of that scale happens, the legal fallout typically stretches for years and can involve wrongful death lawsuits, federal safety investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforcement, and potential product liability claims against aircraft or component manufacturers.
Second, ADS-B data — the same information at the center of the tax fight — is often used in aviation accident investigations and civil cases. Flight-tracking data can help reconstruct what happened in the seconds before a crash, whether a pilot deviated from an assigned altitude, or whether traffic-avoidance systems worked as designed. Restrictions on how that data can be used, even in a tax context, tend to draw attention from lawyers who handle aviation cases because they may signal broader debates about transparency in the skies.
Third, aviation is one of the most heavily regulated corners of personal injury law. Federal rules can preempt certain state-law claims, and international treaties may apply to some commercial flights. That mix makes aviation crash litigation different from a typical car accident case.
Who Could Be Affected
While most readers will never be involved in an aviation accident, cases like the D.C.-area collision touch a surprisingly wide circle of people. Categories that generally may have legal interests after an aviation incident include:
- Families of passengers or crew who died or were seriously injured, who may have wrongful death or survival claims.
- Ground victims — people on the ground who are hurt or whose property is damaged by falling debris or a crash landing.
- Airline and airport employees, who may have workers' compensation or third-party claims depending on the circumstances.
- First responders, who can sometimes pursue claims for injuries sustained during rescue operations, subject to state-law rules.
- Owners of nearby property damaged by a crash.
- Consumers and small operators who rely on general aviation and may be affected by any policy shift that changes how flight data is shared.
How Cases Like This Generally Work
Aviation injury and wrongful death cases typically follow a pattern, even though every case is different.
Investigation comes first. After a major crash, the NTSB usually leads a federal investigation. Its findings can take a year or more and are generally not admissible in court in the same way ordinary evidence is, but the underlying data — flight recorders, maintenance logs, radar and ADS-B tracks, radio traffic — often becomes central to civil cases.
Evidence preservation matters early. Lawyers representing families or injured survivors typically move quickly to preserve wreckage, request data, and send "litigation hold" letters so that maintenance records, training files, and electronic data are not destroyed in the normal course of business.
Multiple defendants are common. Depending on the facts, potential defendants may include an airline, an aircraft manufacturer, a parts supplier, a maintenance contractor, a charter operator, or — in some cases — a government entity. Claims against federal agencies generally follow special procedures like the Federal Tort Claims Act, with strict notice deadlines.
Deadlines are strict. Statutes of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death vary by state, and aviation claims may also involve federal or international deadlines. Missing a deadline can generally end a case before it starts.
Settlement is common but not guaranteed. Many aviation cases resolve through negotiated settlements, sometimes years after the crash. Others proceed to trial, especially when liability or damages are strongly contested.
What to Watch Next
Readers following this story may see several developments in the coming months:
- Senate action on the ALERT Act. Whether the ADS-B amendment survives, is stripped, or is modified will shape how flight data can be used going forward.
- NTSB findings related to the January 2025 collision, which could influence both policy and any pending civil litigation.
- Civil filings by families of those killed, which are common after mass-casualty aviation events.
- State-level responses, particularly in states like Texas that reportedly stand to lose significant tax revenue if the amendment passes.
- FAA rulemaking on helicopter routes and air traffic procedures around busy airports, which regulators have reportedly been reviewing since the crash.