Tseng purchased a ticket on an El Al flight from New York to Tel Aviv. Prior to boarding, an El Al security guard questioned her about her travel plans. The guard considered her response "illogical" and ranked her as a security risk. Tseng was taken to a private security room and told to remove her shoes and to lower her blue jeans to mid-hip. A female guard then searched her body outside her clothing by hand. Nothing was found, and she was allowed to board. She did not suffer any bodily injury. Tseng sued El Al in New York state court for assault and false imprisonment under New York law. El Al removed the case to a federal district court. The district court dismissed, concluding that Tseng's only remedy was under the Warsaw Convention, and that the Convention precluded recovery unless there was bodily injury. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who did not qualify for relief under the Convention could seek relief under local law for an injury sustained in the course of international air travel. El Al then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
1. Why was Tseng not able to pursue a remedy under New York state law?
2. What policy reasons does the Court give for holding that the air liability convention should preclude remedies under local or state law?
3. Why would Tseng not be successful in an action against the airline in federal court under the Convention?