GUWonder

Disappointing.

Read (a bit) more:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...rs-3908747.php

MAMOHT

That institution has nothing to do with defending US Constitution anymore. They have showed it with a lot of their decisions lately.

Superguy

This is a sad day for the Constitution.

jkhuggins

Just looking at the article ... it looks like the decision was more about what the court of original jurisdiction should be, not about anything dealing with AIT itself.

But I will freely admit to my ignorance in such matters ... can anyone else with more knowledge comment?

GUWonder

It seems like no federal court has been really willing to deal with the matter he raised. And the issue won't be addressed by state/local courts.

jkhuggins

See, that's what's unclear to me. The local court in Florida said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's unclear what the appeals court ruled; it could be that the appeals court simply ruled that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

On the other hand, it could be that the appeals court actually heard the case against AIT and threw it out on the merits.

Again ... I'd love it if someone who can speak lawyer could comment ...

Upgraded!

I'm probably as ignorant as you in these matters, but my understanding is that the Federal Circuit and Supreme Courts are primarily looking to reverse procedural errors by lower courts, rather than changing decisions they disagree with. In this case, perhaps the lowest court, who originally dismissed the case, had an entirely valid reason for doing so (other than "caving" to other gov't offices who want this to stay out of court).

If the plaintiff's case were somehow invalid (for a procedural or substantive reason) and that was the basis on which the court declined to hear the case, rather than saying "they're the gov't, they can do what they want, case dismissed" then the higher courts made the right decision to uphold the lower court's ruling. I, too, would love more information on the original case (haven't opened the links above yet to look, that's my next stop).

GUWonder

If US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals don't have jurisdiction over matters involving the constitutionality of TSA searches, which court does? The Supreme Court that refused to hear the matter? They all have jurisdiction over the matter of constitutionality of TSA searches, even if they don't want to get involved in such matters.

The Courts listening to the Executive too much on whether or not administrative remedies have been pursued and/or are available makes a mess of things and really cuts off avenues.

Upgraded!

You seem to understand this stuff pretty well and also appear to have some familiarity with the underlying case; can you shed some light on the first court's reasons for dismissal/claims not to have jurisdiction?

RichardKenner

There's a specific law that says that certain types of rulings (and the essence of the case is what those types are) aren't the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but rather that the appeals courts have original jurisdiction. Corbett's argument is that the types of ruling that the law was meant for were ones where there was an administrative evidenciary hearing, which serves the purpose of the lower court and hence giving original jurisdiction to an appeals court to review that hearing makes sense. But this ruling (if it even is a ruling, which is the issue before the court) hasn't had an such hearing, so Corbett argues that it belongs in the lower court.

However, this issue is now definitively settled, so Corbett will presumably file a new action in the appeals court and we'll get a decision on its merits from that court.

Upgraded!

So my understanding of your post above is that the appellate courts were not saying "we don't want to hear a case about TSA's use of AIT," rather they were saying "we will not require the lower courts to hear this case and uphold their decision that this is out of their jurisdiction"?

If my reading is correct then my understanding is that they were not so much saying "we don't want to hear the case about the machines," rather "we do not want to hear a case about whether the lower courts must hear a case about the machines" and it could very well be that once the case is refiled they will hear the actual case at hand, despite refusing to hear the case about who must hear the actual case at hand?

GUWonder

That's far closer to it.

DHS has gotten what it wanted for now, which includes avoiding a jury of common Americans.

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/

FlyingUnderTheRadar

It is quite simple if Corbett wants his day in court he must file with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Congress has set up the TSA such that, that court is the only court that can hear such suits.

Corbett filed in another court and it was tossed. The Supreme agreed with the initial appeal. He just needs to refile with the court in Washington, D.C. and then as I said he will have his day in court.

FWIW court justification is often disputed. Typically though it is state vs federal.

Boggie Dog

It has been said that Corbet cannot present evidence in the appeals court. If true then what kind of justice is that?

FlyingUnderTheRadar

What evidence? If evidence related to the nudi scope then that is correct - it should not have been heard. If evidence related to why he should be able to file in FL rather than in DC that is a different matter.

Issue is one of jurisdiction not of the merits of his complaint. Corbett wanted it in the 11th Circuit Court so that the case could be heard by a jury. Corbett evens says that:

“That’s the bad news. The good news is that the fight is not over. It simply must be continued without that jury, and with discovery and witnesses allowed to me at the discretion of the 11th Circuit.”


Corbett will refile in DC and continue his fight. That said once he refiles I have no idea what evidence he may or may not present at the DC Appeals court.