I have mixed feelings on this. Not the outcome, which is great. The fact that Phil was willing to put his money, time, and freedom at risk for his beliefs is admirable. The fact that the authorities were willing to waste the taxpayers' money on a futile prosecution is further evidence of their incompetence, as if we needed that.
All of the above is 100% in favor of Phil. So why do I have mixed feelings? Because IMHO Phil had many opportunities to end the confrontation, yet he chose to prolong it. Those decisions turned this incident into a political protest, regardless of whether it began innocently and without pre-planning.
In my opinion, the legislature (Congress) is the proper place to seek change in the law. Legislators are best equipped to weigh all the interests against each other. Judges tend to have a more one-dimensional view. Judicial decisions make bad law, and their law is undemocratic and harder to correct. For this reason, I cannot be a fan of people who attempt to use the courts to effect change undemocratically when they have not exhausted the democratic legislative possibilities. Of course it's easier to persuade one judge to agree with you than to persuade a majority of Congress, especially if you have some control over which judge hears your case, but democracy requires the latter approach.
I'm happy for Phil, but I hope that protesters apply pressure to Congress in the future rather than playing rulebook games with the TSA. I think Congress is ready to consider some changes now, especially given the public's distaste for the new scanning machines.
In a classroom environment I would agree that only legislatures should make laws. However, real world influences often generate laws that conflict with constitutional guarantees. It is the job of the courts (in the US, where this happened, and elsewhere but not everywhere) to judge the actions of the people before it and the laws that are written.
I would refer you to the history of civil rights legislation in this country for some stellar examples and precedents. There were laws against many interracial activities (attending the same school, sitting on any seat on the bus, voting) and so on. It took people speaking up, often at risk to their own safety and freedom, being willing to be arrested and then asking the courts to rule on the legitimacy of the laws.
This case is important to me on many fronts. I'm a hobbyist photographer, a lawyer and a frequent flyer. I also teach computer security and understand that the ID checking done at TSA checkpoints is security theater. I applaud Phil for his willingness to take a risk and I am very pleased with the results.
That said, perhaps a bit of context might be useful. The court did not say what the TSA can or cannot do. The JURY said that Phil wasn't guilty of disorderly conduct and some other charges that came from that incident. There is NO precedent set here. (Precedents flow down from judges' opinions, not from verdicts). Keep in mind that this was a state court. The judge, even if so inclined, couldn't do anything to change TSA/DHS. State judiciaries have have no authority over a federal agency.