It appears to be. The decision draws a distinction between "programmatic" intent and screener's intent. It seems to suggest that, as long as the intent of the program falls within the constitutionally valid ambit of an administrative search, e.g. preventing WEI, the screener's intent in going further is irrelevant. However, the decision then goes on to examine the screener's intent in the specific instance. The net result would appear to be some very disturbing dicta, along with the 9th Circuit finding what is, for all intents an purposes, an abuse of judicial discretion on the part of the lower court judge for finding the screener not credible.

However, this decision still is confined to the question of finding contraband during the course of an administrative search and the contraband in question here was child pornography. There has always been a judicial gloss involving subjective morality applied to a variety of decisions and this case is probably an example of it. I'm not too concerned. I far more interested in the cases that challenge the AIT and the grope.