A three-judge panel heard arguments by Zoom conference call on Monday in the Chattanooga Airport Authority case.

Chancellor Jeff Atherton said the judges, also including Judge Joseph Woodruff and Chancellor Michael Mansfield, will be issuing a written opinion.

Chattanooga attorney John Konvalinka argued in behalf of the "old board" that had long operated the local airport until a new law by the state Legislature changed the appointment process effective July 1. Under the former plan, all appointments were by the mayor of Chattanooga.

Chattanooga attorney Sandy Mattice, representing the "new board" appointed under the new law, and state attorney Tyler Sanders made a case for dismissal of the city's legal action.

Chancellor Atherton inquired as to whether the case involved having a "deep red" Legislature who chose to "intrude upon" some "blue" cities.

Attorney Sanders said there was some indication that the Federal Aviation Authority might make its position in the matter known within the next two days. He said that "may provide some clarity in the case."

Thus far, the FAA has not sided with either board.

Attorney Mattice said the FAA apparently has confidence in the new board, recently awarding a large grant to the Chattanooga Airport. Judge Woodruff noted that such grant awards usually are worked out over an extended period.

A city spokesperson said:

The three-judge panel heard arguments related to four pending matters:

• Motion for Voluntary Dismissal: A motion filed by attorney Sandy Mattice on behalf of individuals appointed pursuant to the new state law seeking to withdraw the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

• State’s Motion to Stay: A request from the State to pause the state-court proceedings pending further developments in the related federal proceeding involving the Federal Aviation Administration.

• State’s Motion to Dismiss: A request from the State to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

• Plaintiffs’ Request for Temporary Injunctive Relief: A request from the City of Chattanooga and Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority seeking temporary relief to preserve the governance structure that existed prior to July 1 while the underlying legal questions are resolved.

The court denied the motion for voluntary dismissal.

The panel also heard arguments from the parties regarding the State’s motion to stay, the State’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs’ request for temporary injunctive relief.

The hearing did not resolve the underlying lawsuit or the broader legal questions surrounding governance of the Chattanooga Airport. The state court litigation remains ongoing, and the parties will await the panel’s written rulings on the remaining motions.

A related federal proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also remains pending. The D.C. Circuit has ordered the FAA to respond to the city and CMAA’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which seeks to compel FAA action related to the Airport governance dispute.

A spokesperson for the Airport "new board" said:

 A three-judge panel considering the legal challenge to Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority governance ruled Monday that the state-court case will continue while related federal and Federal Aviation Administration matters remain unresolved.

The Court denied the State’s request to stay the Tennessee proceedings. Importantly, however, Monday’s ruling did not alter the current legal framework governing the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority.

The Court did not:

? declare Public Chapter 978 unconstitutional;

? stay or enjoin Public Chapter 978;

? grant the City of Chattanooga and former board members’ request for injunctive relief;

? order the former board restored to office; or

? rule on the State’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

As a result, Public Chapter 978 remains in effect while the Court considers the remaining issues before it. The 2026 law changed the appointment structure of metropolitan and regional airport authority boards in Tennessee. It took effect July 1, 2026, and reconstituted the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Board of Commissioners.

The panel indicated that rulings are expected soon on two significant matters argued Monday: the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief and the State of Tennessee’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Until the Court rules on those matters, Monday’s decision means the Tennessee litigation will proceed rather than being paused while the FAA or federal courts consider Former Federal Judge Sandy Mattice, counsel for the CMAA Board constituted under Public Chapter 978, emphasized that distinction during the hearing.

Attorney Mattice said, “Today’s ruling addresses whether this case will proceed now; it does not invalidate Public Chapter 978 or suspend its operation. The statute has not been stayed or enjoined. Our position remains that CMAA is the same airport sponsor it was before July 1 and that the law changed the composition of its governing board, not the identity of the Airport Authority itself. Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise, the law currently in effect remains the governing law.”

He also "challenged the plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 757 of the FAA Reauthorization Act, arguing that there has been no change in the identity of Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority as airport sponsor. His argument distinguished between the continuing public authority that owns and operates the Airport and the composition of the board governing that authority.Mattice further pointed to the Airport’s operations since July, arguing that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated the operational harm they previously anticipated. Chattanooga Airport has continued operating, pursuing initiatives and serving passengers while the governance litigation proceeds."

Dr. Shannon Burger, chair of the new Airport board, said Monday’s proceedings "do not change the Board’s immediate responsibilities. Public Chapter 978 remains in effect, no injunction has been entered, and the Court has ordered no change in the Airport’s governance. We will continue fulfilling our responsibilities under the law while respecting the judicial process. As chair, I remain deeply concerned by the public and Airport resources being consumed by litigation over who sits in the boardroom. It is deeply troubling that public resources are being spent on what I believe is a frivolous lawsuit rather than being preserved for the Airport's essential mission and the economic future of our region.”

She said throughout the legal proceedings, the Airport’s professional management team has continued overseeing daily operations.

The "new board" statement continued:

The three-judge panel is expected to issue additional rulings on:

Request for Injunctive Relief: The City of Chattanooga and former board members are asking the Court for temporary relief concerning implementation of Public Chapter 978.

Motion to Dismiss: The State is asking the Court to dismiss the constitutional challenge. Before today’s hearing, the State argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs lack standing and have not demonstrated an injury resulting from the change in board appointments.

A recording of the full hearing is available here.