Not to mention the issue of "voluntary surrender", another serious hurdle and an argument that would no doubt show up in the government's brief.
It's only proper if the government had administrative search authority to refuse to screen the liquids, and refuse to allow screened liquids to travel.
It's obviously not "voluntary" — it's on threat of refusal of travel. The threat has to be legitimate. (Put another way, it would not have happened "but for" the threat, which establishes causality.)
Originally Posted by
whitearrow
Neither effort will be successful.
Even if the class cert doesn't work out, my personal claim remains, and is sufficient basis to get injunctive relief.
Originally Posted by
BSBD
It doesn't matter what you believe. The people in charge of setting the rules believed there was a threat.
And that determination gets them substantial deference… but not infinitely so. They don't have the authority to refuse to screen items that are obviously not threats and easily screenable, and then on the basis of not screening them, refuse to let them travel.
I don't know what it would take to change the ruling, but it certainly isn't a class-action suit claiming "damages."
What it takes to change it is injunctive relief, which is separate.