Originally Posted by
ND Sol
The crux of the issue in Gilmore was that the TSA would permit him to fly without showing ID, provided he consented to additional screening of his person and property, which was then called "secondary screening". Gilmore did not want to go through that secondary screening. The court said that if a reasonable alternative to not showing ID existed, then the TSA requirement was permissible.
Two items that are not addressed given today's TSA environment are (1) whether the WBI meets the tests for even secondary screening and (2) the TSA requirement that you will not be permitted to enter the sterile area if you have an ID on your person, but refuse to show it.
The main items (this thread) are the justification for and consequences of not
a) pronouncing your name
b) answering damnfool (sorry, immaterial) questions.
If the reasonable alternative per Gilmore is still in force, then that court opinion is still valid. If not then that opinion is surely now moot and can not be cited as a precedent; unfortunately we're not likely to see it put to the test.