You say that, yet we all know that the change making what happened a violation of DoT rules wouldn't have happened if it weren't for this incident having caused worldwide outrage.

Refusing to leave is exactly what caused the problem to be fixed, taking it to courts would do little more than get the man a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation.

I would hold that the change to DoT rules was fundamentally reactionary, unwarranted, and not rooted in any sort of reasoned argument. The rules change seems to be based in the idea that we simply can't expect people to contain their emotions when they are asked to leave a plane they have already been seated on. I think we should maintain this expectation, and more generally maintain the expectation that people control their emotions and remain calm and reasonable in day-to-day interactions. This would all have been avoided if the fellow just got up and left, as he was told, and as the airline staff were entitled to tell him.

Also, a half-hearted apology and a bit of compensation is all the fellow is entitled to in this situation.

You cannot ask a paying tenant to leave your house.

It's nowhere like asking someone to leave your house. A plane is not a house.

This is someone that paid for a service, is following all the rules set in contract and is not causing any problem to you. You merely picked on this person at random.

This is like expelling a tenant that didn't do anything wrong and paid the rent because you want to let your cousin sleep for the night.

It's more like pulling over at the side of the road and asking a passenger to leave your car. You are indeed quite entitled to do this. I think landlords and tenants are a distinct situation that does not apply to the rest of the business world. There, services can be terminated, or goods not provided, and the the resulting disputes are fundamentally civil.

Also, evicting a tenant so you can occupy the space is pretty much the most legitimate reason there is for eviction.

But still the eviction has to follow due process in virtually every jurisdiction.

And planes are nothing like private cars. An analogy would be Taxis. Taxis accepting the fare but then leaving passengers "at the side of the road" without provocation or reason is also against consumer laws in lots of jurisdictions.

At that time, this was the due process: ask the passenger to leave, and if they refuse, apply force. I'm arguing that this is the appropriate process. And in general I'm arguing for less regulation of how people resolve private disputes over business arraignments.