Families of people who died in two fatal Boeing 737 Max crashes returned to court in New Orleans on Thursday, seeking to revive a criminal case that federal prosecutors moved to end. Thirty-one families told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower court improperly dismissed a criminal conspiracy charge against Boeing after the Justice Department reached a deal that kept Boeing from facing trial.
At the hearing, Paul Cassell, the lawyer for the families, urged the three-judge panel to overturn the dismissal. Cassell said federal prosecutors failed to properly consult the families before striking the agreement and shutting them out of the process, and he urged the court to restore the criminal case so it could proceed to trial.
The criminal case focuses on a software system Boeing developed for the 737 Max and on alleged failures to disclose key information to aviation regulators. Cassell argued that the charge centered on Boeing’s alleged conduct in misleading Federal Aviation Administration officials about a flight-control system tied to the crashes that killed 346 people.
Federal prosecutors countered that the government had for years solicited and weighed the views of the crash victims’ families as it decided whether and how to prosecute Boeing. In the government’s view, the process had included family input, and the decision to seek dismissal after the negotiated resolution reflected the Justice Department’s judgment about the case.
The government’s position rested on a resolution agreement reached after prosecutors asked to withdraw the criminal charge. Under the deal, Boeing avoided prosecution in exchange for paying or investing an additional $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for victims’ families, and internal safety and quality measures.
More than a dozen family members attended the hearing in person, and Cassell said many more listened to the livestream of the arguments from “around the globe.” After the hearing, Paul Njoroge, who lives in Canada and lost his wife, children and mother-in-law in the second crash, said in a statement that he felt “there wouldn’t be meaningful accountability without a trial.”
The Boeing 737 Max cases began with charges filed after years of litigation and negotiations. The Justice Department first charged Boeing in 2021 with defrauding the government but agreed not to prosecute if the company paid a settlement and took steps to comply with anti-fraud laws. In 2024, prosecutors said Boeing violated the agreement, and Boeing agreed to plead guilty—an approach that U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor later rejected before directing the parties to resume negotiations.
In November, O’Connor issued a written decision that described the families’ arguments as compelling but concluded that case law prevented him from blocking the dismissal motion simply because he disagreed with prosecutors’ view of the public interest. The judge also said prosecutors had not acted in bad faith and that they explained their decision and met their obligations under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Boeing’s lawyer, Paul Clement, told the appeals panel that more than 60 families “affirmatively supported” the deal and that dozens more did not oppose it. Clement said Boeing “deeply regrets” the crashes and that it “has taken extraordinary steps to improve its internal processes and has paid substantial compensation” to the victims’ families.
The case ties back to two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019, involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines. In both incidents, investigators said the plane’s software repeatedly pitched the nose down based on faulty readings from a single sensor, and pilots were unable to regain control. After the Ethiopian Airlines crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months.
Investigators also found that Boeing did not inform key Federal Aviation Administration personnel about changes made to the software before regulators set pilot training requirements and certified the airliner for flight. The flight-control system at the center of the criminal dispute was Boeing’s response to a more fuel-efficient model from rival Airbus, and the plane included significant changes that Boeing downplayed, including the addition of an automated system designed to account for larger engines.
The appeals court panel heard arguments from the families, the government, and Boeing, and said it would issue its decision at a later date.