The Definitive TSA Lawsuits Thread
Feb 19, 2011 | 9:06 am
#32
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Feb 19, 2011 | 9:26 am
#33
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 360
Actually, a very good argument can be made that they are, since they process medical information, and, in fact, have a set of standard forms, and the Implementation Act has TSA process this info for DHS. That makes TSA, as odd as it may sound, a health info clearinghouse and, by virtue of that, a covered entity. Anyway, it will tie them up for months arguing about it. And isn't that the goal? If only one court somewhere in the US finds them to be a covered entity, they are.
Feb 19, 2011 | 12:02 pm
#34
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Apr 7, 2011 | 9:14 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 145
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.
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.
Jul 7, 2011 | 8:18 am
#36
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,049
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.
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 TSAs 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 TSAs 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)
The court has tossed the lawsuit as requested by TSAs 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)
Jul 15, 2011 | 10:46 am
#37
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY
Programs: Delta DM/1MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 683
EPIC loses its suit
EPIC's suit denied....
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...body-scanners/
However,
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 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.
Jul 15, 2011 | 11:26 am
#39
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 118
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?
Jul 15, 2011 | 11:33 am
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
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
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
Jul 15, 2011 | 12:00 pm
#41
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold MM
Posts: 146
In reality - this part of the ruling couldn't have worked out better. If the TSA had properly allowed for public comment prior to rolling out the machines, you can bet that the responses would have been overwhelmingly positive.
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.
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.
Jul 15, 2011 | 12:30 pm
#42
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 118
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
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?
Last edited by Bungnoid; Jul 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm Reason: Grammar
Jul 15, 2011 | 2:38 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...als-court.html
Bruce
Jul 15, 2011 | 3:08 pm
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
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
The issue is currently being appealedRe: Precident - The EPIC ruling is only binding in the DC Circuit. None of the district court cases started in DC.
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?
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?
Jul 15, 2011 | 6:08 pm
#45
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 3,182
Plus, couldn't you argue the constitutionality on other grounds? They may have lost on the Fourth Amendment, but why not make an Eighth Amendment case that having to stand in a position you are unable to stand in or else be subject to the grope constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? Or else a case under ADA/Title IIV (probably the former) since it discriminates against the handicapped in some ways? Not nearly as compelling as a case regarding the Fourth, but could gain some momentum in the press at least.