Originally Posted by
DevilDog438
TSA has been in several court cases over the years and has successfully stonewalled the court with a "national security" argument. The worst that has happened to TSA to date, in any of the court cases that I reviewed (IANAL, just curious), is a requirement to submit partial documentation
in camera for the judge to review. In each of those instances, the court documents show that the judge was permitted to review the TSA material, but the defense was not permitted to see, use or rebut that information.
DevilDog, it seems to me that we need civil cases where TSA is the
defendant. I would be surprised if the following sequence of events were to hold:
1. Plaintiff presses civil suit against TSA, the FSD, the TSO(s), etc.
2. Plaintiff's case in court is [i]prima facie[/u] open-and-shut. (If I understand the term correctly, that means that without having yet heard the defense, the plaintiff's case is solid -- but the defense has yet to present their side.)
3. TSA claims SBU (SSI, FOUO, "restricted", etc.) and refuses to openly present their case in a manner that plaintiff could rebut.
4. Court rules for the defense.