I'll give one nugget:
The case is before Circuit Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel.
You may recall that Judge Ginsburg is the Judge who compared the TSA to the Keystone Kops in a concrrence to his own opinion for the court. The TSA (DHS, actually) was permitted to file some SSI sealed ex-parte along with sensitive copyrighted information. Seems they want to keep those naked pictures private. I will read more and update this post.
There are hundreds of pages, but I'll try to flesh out the issues and post a brief summary here . . . EPIC's website has a lot of the documents posted:
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanner...n_of_body.html
(It should also be noted that Judge Ginsburg wrote the recent cracker-jack opinion barring the use of GPS tracking of individuals without a warrant, an opinion divergent from the Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits, virtually gauranteeing Supreme Court review of this issue:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/US...d_decision.pdf)
------------------------------------------------------
EPIC is asking the Court to resolve the following issues:
1. Whether the TSA and respondents violated the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), in failing to act on EPIC’s May 31, 2009 petition (“the
First EPIC Petition”), which urged a public rulemaking on a substantial change in
agency practice that made body scanners the primary screening technique in U.S.
airports;
2. Whether the TSA and respondents violated the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), in issuing the May 28, 2010 order refusing to process
EPIC’s April 21, 2010 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) petition (“the Second EPIC Petition”);
3. Whether the DHS Chief Privacy Officer breached her statutory duty, 6
U.S.C. § 142, to prevent agency technology from eroding privacy protections by
sanctioning the nationwide deployment of FBS devices in tandem with a
systemized collection of airline passengers' personal information;
4. Whether the DHS Chief Privacy Officer failed to uphold her statutory duty,
6 U.S.C. § 142, to conduct adequate Privacy Impact Assessments when she
neglected to identify and report numerous privacy risks in the design of airport
body scanners;
5. Whether the Chief Privacy Officer failed to uphold the same statutory duty
when she failed to conduct any formal assessment once the DHS entered a new,
unpublished rule effectively subjecting all air travelers to FBS devices;
6. Whether the TSA and respondents violated the Fourth Amendment
reasonableness requirement by routinely subjecting all air travelers to a uniquely
invasive, suspicionless, and ultimately ineffective search of the most private areas
of the human body;
7. Whether the TSA and respondents violated the Privacy Act by creating an
indexed system of records containing air travelers' personally identifiable
information without publishing a system of records notice in the Federal Register;
8. Whether the TSA and respondents' systematic rendering of detailed, thre-edimensional
images of air passengers' naked bodies violates the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act by substantially burdening the free exercise of religion of those
airline passengers who embrace sincerely held religious beliefs requiring the
preservation of modesty;
9. Whether the TSA and respondents violated the Video Voyeurism Prevention
Act by systematically capturing images described under the Act as constituting the
"private area of the individual," including "the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, [and] female breasts," and which would clearly
offend any meaningfully definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
18 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(3).