Defendant nonetheless argues that "[e]ven if the Court were to conclude that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment, [Defendant] would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there was no law clearly establishing the specific degree of permissible intrusiveness of a security screening pat-down[.]...

Frankly, it strains credulity for Defendant to claim that a reasonable federal officer would be surprised to learn that gratuitously striking an individual in the groin while searching them violates the Fourth Amendment.