A federal judge in Texas has scheduled a trial for June regarding a long-standing conspiracy case against Boeing. The case involves accusations that the aerospace company misled regulators about the safety of its 737 Max jets, which were involved in two fatal crashes, resulting in 346 deaths. The decision was made by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, marking a significant turn in a case that has seen protracted negotiations between Boeing and the Justice Department.
Initially, Boeing and the Justice Department had reached a plea arrangement in July 2024, where Boeing was to plead guilty to a single felony charge. However, Judge O’Connor rejected the deal in December. He cited concerns that the diversity, inclusion, and equity policies of the Justice Department at the time might compromise the integrity of appointing an independent monitor to supervise Boeing’s compliance with the proposed terms.
The judge had extended deadlines multiple times to allow both parties to formulate a possible resolution without going to trial. However, his recent order on Tuesday negated further postponement, setting a timeline leading to a trial set for June 23 in Fort Worth.
While the Justice Department has chosen not to comment on this development, Boeing released a statement affirming that discussions with the Department remain productive and are conducted in good faith. Nonetheless, specifics about the negotiations remain undisclosed.
The previously rejected deal aimed to avoid a criminal trial, allowing Boeing to admit to conspiring to mislead the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding pilot training needed for the 737 Max, a decision potentially influenced by cost-saving measures for airlines. However, safety concerns quickly mounted after the 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, drawing immense attention to Boeing’s practices and regulatory compliance.
Family members of the crash victims have campaigned for stricter punishments, including the prosecution of Boeing executives and more severe financial repercussions. Despite these calls, prosecutors found it challenging to directly link Boeing’s actions to the accidents, with the conspiracy to commit fraud being the strongest charge they felt they could prove.
Judge O’Connor, in his December ruling, didn’t take issue with the proposed financial penalties, including a significant fine, safety programs investment, and probation terms. Instead, he focused on the possible bias in selecting an impartial monitor, highlighting that the inclusion of DEI principles suggested a lack of impartiality that could undermine public trust.
The judge’s concerns are given new context under the changing political landscape. An executive order signed by President Donald Trump during his second term aimed to dismantle DEI programs in the federal sector. Depending on pending legal responses to Trump’s order, Judge O’Connor’s worries could potentially be deemed irrelevant.
Boeing had to agree to the plea agreement after being accused of violating a 2021 deferred prosecution deal under the same fraud-conspiracy charge. Renewed scrutiny arose from an incident in January 2024, where a door panel blew off an Alaska Airlines 737 Max mid-flight, raising questions about Boeing’s manufacturing standards once again.
Boeing previously indicated it would contest any finding that it breached its 2021 agreement should the plea deal fall through. Judge O’Connor’s observations in December provided support for Boeing’s position, pointing out uncertainties regarding what exactly constituted a breach of that deal.