Originally Posted by
TerminalBliss
Until an action is brought before the Court that determines that the current screening methodology falls beyond what was intended under administrative searches, TSA is FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW.
The position you hint at can be dangerous in that it can be used to defend almost any disgusting practice not yet covered by a court. In other words, the defense that one is "FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW" could apply to a whole host of things ruled illegal, sone in cases that involved massive abuses. The truth is that the TSA doesn't realy know as of yet (and neither do we) if all the things they are doing are legal or not-- they are in unchartered waters in many cases and it is impossible to know what a court will rule.
When you say "FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW", that can also be taken to mean sufficiently within the same galaxy of the law such that if a court at a later time ruled a practice illegal, the TSA would be protected by qualified immunity. I might also comment that it is hard to say what constitutes full compliance with the law when there is very little caselaw either way on several issues being litigated right now-- it is easy to 'comply' with the law when no law yet exists.
Originally Posted by
MikeMpls
I did, however, find an article about
Castenada vs. USA.
WARNING: This link is not for the squeamish & those with full stomachs.
Just so you know, the Supremen Court reversed the 9th Circuit in this case and left the FTCA as the only remedy.