|
Originally Posted by DeafBlonde
(Post 15894022)
Do I sense some bitterness here? ;)
|
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc
(Post 15894114)
A little perhaps. I'm a wheelchair-bound disabled veteran who gets treated like a terrorist by these un-American thugs.
~~ Irish |
Originally Posted by IrishDoesntFlyNow
(Post 15894142)
While I agree with the premise, TSA isn't subject to HIPAA; they aren't a covered entity.
~~ Irish |
Originally Posted by 4nsicdoc
(Post 15894114)
A little perhaps. I'm a wheelchair-bound disabled veteran who gets treated like a terrorist by these un-American thugs.
|
Keep fighting the good fight, Jon!
Is there any way I (or other members of the forum) can support any of these lawsuits? I think this is a lot more effective than writing legislators - and I would know, having written my congressman and senator multiple times and getting form letters ignoring the issue in return. |
Originally Posted by cordelli
(Post 15446927)
Carlsbad Woman Suing TSA for 'Humiliating' Search
KOB.com reports Carlsbad resident Adrienne Durso is suing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after a pat-down in August at the Albuquerque International Sunport. In a telephone interview, she told the TV station the search was "heavily concentrating on my breast area where I told her I had a mastectomy the year previous, and it just seemed to go on and on." According to KOB, Durso said she felt "humiliated" as the extensive pat-down happened in front of her 17-year-old son and hundreds of other travelers. "I felt as though I didn't have any rights other than I had to stand there and let them do what they wanted to my body," she told the TV station. Click here (pdf) to read the entire lawsuit. They are demanding a jury trial, not sure if that's standard or not in these type of things. Looks like this one got tossed out for being filed in the wrong court. The Transportation Security Administration has won a round in a lawsuit filed by three citizens challenging TSA’s use of “advanced imaging technology” (AIT) and “aggressive pat-downs” to screen passengers at airports. (Durso, et al. v. Napolitano and Pistole, D.D.C. Civil Action 10-02066 (HHK), 7/5/11) The court has tossed the lawsuit as requested by TSA’s motion to dismiss that argued the case was in the wrong court. (Opinion p. 1) In short, the court agreed with TSA that “because the challenged screening procedures are employed pursuant to a TSA order, the U.S. courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ challenges thereto.” (p. 1) |
EPIC loses its suit
EPIC's suit denied....
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...body-scanners/ A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously declined to block the government from using airport body scanners across airports nationwide, saying it is “not persuaded by any of the statutory or constitutional arguments” against them. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was deciding a constitutional and procedural challenge to the Advanced Imaging Technology “nude” body scanners, which began rolling out in 2007 and are deployed to at least 78 airports nationwide. The Electronic Privacy Information Center asked the court to block usage of the devices — of which 500 more are to be rolled out this year — on grounds that they are an unconstitutional privacy invasion, ineffective and unhealthy to airline passengers. The appellate court, which is one stop from the Supreme Court, said that the Transportation Security Administration breached federal law in 2009 when it formally adopted the airport scanners as the “primary” method of screening. The judges said the TSA violated the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to have a 90-day public comment period, and ordered the agency to undertake one. |
Declaring this as a loss for EPIC is silly. They won several important points, the conclusion of which is that the TSA now must conduct public rulemaking to establish the nude body scanners.
--Jon |
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16733683)
Declaring this as a loss for EPIC is silly. They won several important points, the conclusion of which is that the TSA now must conduct public rulemaking to establish the nude body scanners.
--Jon |
Forcing them to face the public fury is a great start. Once there is a public rulemaking, the TSA must consider all the information presented to them. If they fail to, they can be hauled back into court.
The core of EPIC's arguments was always the rulemaking. They didn't do a good job presenting any other aspect of the case, largely because they filed before the TSA implemented the NoS as primary. The cases in the district courts now have a much better chance at getting scope & grope to be declared unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by Bungnoid
(Post 16733724)
What does that mean? So they go through the formality of the public comment period; then what? Make a report of the public comments received and then go on doing as they please? Are they obligated to change policies based on public comments?
|
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16733762)
Forcing them to face the public fury is a great start.
Now - with public perception turning against them (not nearly fast enough) - the responses are going to be completely different. For every new youtube molestation video there will be hundreds of new negative public comments. Unfortunately I don't think it will matter in the end. |
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16733762)
Forcing them to face the public fury is a great start. Once there is a public rulemaking, the TSA must consider all the information presented to them. If they fail to, they can be hauled back into court.
The core of EPIC's arguments was always the rulemaking. They didn't do a good job presenting any other aspect of the case, largely because they filed before the TSA implemented the NoS as primary. The cases in the district courts now have a much better chance at getting scope & grope to be declared unconstitutional. --Jon Regardless, how could a district court declare "scope & grope" unconstitutional now that the appeals court has ruled otherwise? Hasn't that avenue now been closed? Wouldn't it require the Supreme Court to overturn that decision? |
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16733683)
Declaring this as a loss for EPIC is silly. They won several important points, the conclusion of which is that the TSA now must conduct public rulemaking to establish the nude body scanners.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...als-court.html Bruce |
Re: District court cases - see my blog. :) The issue is currently being appealed
Re: Precident - The EPIC ruling is only binding in the DC Circuit. None of the district court cases started in DC.
Originally Posted by Bungnoid
(Post 16734068)
Are there any cases in the district courts? Wasn't there a ruling recently (the Rutherford Institute case) that the district courts do not have jurisdiction?
Regardless, how could a district court declare "scope & grope" unconstitutional now that the appeals court has ruled otherwise? Hasn't that avenue now been closed? Wouldn't it require the Supreme Court to overturn that decision? |
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16734933)
Re: District court cases - see my blog. :) The issue is currently being appealed
Re: Precident - The EPIC ruling is only binding in the DC Circuit. None of the district court cases started in DC. --Jon |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.