Congratulations. According to the ruling, when Gilmore presented himself to Southwest and United Airlines, he was in each case told he could fly by subjecting himself to a more intensive (secondary) search. He refused. This was, of course, before he filed his suit. So it's hard to see how this ruling fleshed out much of anything. It held that the specifics are, in fact, SSI, and through review, that the procedures he was subjected to did not violate either the scope of the procedures or the law. With the sole exception of having the appeal denied on purely jurisdictional grounds, he lost on every particular. It's somewhat like bragging about getting out of the speeding ticket by proving the radar gun hadn't been calibrated, as you are being led away to jail on 5 charges of drunk driving.

Additionally, aspects of the ruling clearly derail much loved arguments here, including burden on a single mode of travel making such mode into a right (Miller v. Reed). So, in short, the ruling further solidifies the notion that you do not have a right to fly. The court also reaffirmed United States v. Davis, which holds search of posessions to be reasonable as long as one is free to leave rather than submit. This section also clearly addresses the legality of behavioral profiling as a component of such a search.

In short, a slap down on every issue of substance. A waste of whoever's money was spent, though I am happy to contribute my share through my taxes in order to reaffirm the principles involved.