Originally Posted by BillScann
...The point of this investigation is to determine whether TSA told the 9th Circuit the truth. The 9th rejected Gilmore's arguments because the Feds claimed their secret laws (which neither you nor I have yet to see) gave pax an option to either show their papers or go through secondary screening. By pulling in data points from travelers across the country, we can then separate TSA secret law fact from fiction and figure out whether those secret laws are evenly applied.
The results received thus far have been quite enlightening. I'll be publishing a detailed analysis within the next week, but what we're seeing is that so long as a pax w/o ID is willing to grovel to the TSA, chances are that pax will fly. If you tell them 'The dog ate my homework', you should be able to fly. When pax simply refuse to show ID, then it's a very different story. Needless to say, the right to travel in our country should not be predicated on the degree to which a citizen is willing to bow and scrape to authority.
More later,
Bill
I agree with that last point, but let's say that you can prove the unevenness you allege. Then what? What would be unlawful about giving greater scruitiny to those who refuse to show ID for no reason, or for stated privacy reasons? The 9th Cir. has already held that the constituional right to travel is not implicated here (i.e., commercial air is only one means of travel). Search and seizure law is inapplicable because this is a request for consent to screen (don't have to consent if you don't fly). I think that leaves you with some vague free speech or equal protection arguments, neither of which is likely to fly.
Please don't misunderstand -- I think you raise legitimate concerns about TSA and ID. I'm just very skeptical that the legal challenges will succeed.