Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Strip Search Machine Case

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Strip Search Machine Case

Old Oct 1, 12, 10:26 am
  #1  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 98,677
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Strip Search Machine Case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't hear a Michigan man's attempt to challenge the use of full body scanners at airports.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Jonathan Corbett, who wanted to challenge the Transportation Security Administration's use of full body scanners and/or enhanced pat downs at airport security lines.
Disappointing.

Read (a bit) more:

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...rs-3908747.php
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 10:50 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Programs: DL MM, DL DM, Marriott PP
Posts: 561
That institution has nothing to do with defending US Constitution anymore. They have showed it with a lot of their decisions lately.
MAMOHT is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 11:08 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: Gate Louse Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,164
This is a sad day for the Constitution.
Superguy is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 11:24 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Just looking at the article ... it looks like the decision was more about what the court of original jurisdiction should be, not about anything dealing with AIT itself.

But I will freely admit to my ignorance in such matters ... can anyone else with more knowledge comment?
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 11:40 am
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 98,677
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
Just looking at the article ... it looks like the decision was more about what the court of original jurisdiction should be, not about anything dealing with AIT itself.

But I will freely admit to my ignorance in such matters ... can anyone else with more knowledge comment?
It seems like no federal court has been really willing to deal with the matter he raised. And the issue won't be addressed by state/local courts.

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that is attempting to challenge the use of full body scanners at airport security checkpoints, the Associated Press reports. Jonathan Corbett challenged the Transportation Security Administration's use of the devices, along with enhanced pat downs, but federal courts in Florida refused to hear the suit. Corbett then filed an appeal in U.S. Circuit Court, which upheld the lower court's dismissal. The advanced imaging technology has been online since October 2010, the wire service noted.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 12:25 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
See, that's what's unclear to me. The local court in Florida said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's unclear what the appeals court ruled; it could be that the appeals court simply ruled that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

On the other hand, it could be that the appeals court actually heard the case against AIT and threw it out on the merits.

Again ... I'd love it if someone who can speak lawyer could comment ...
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 1:05 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
See, that's what's unclear to me. The local court in Florida said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's unclear what the appeals court ruled; it could be that the appeals court simply ruled that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

On the other hand, it could be that the appeals court actually heard the case against AIT and threw it out on the merits.

Again ... I'd love it if someone who can speak lawyer could comment ...
I'm probably as ignorant as you in these matters, but my understanding is that the Federal Circuit and Supreme Courts are primarily looking to reverse procedural errors by lower courts, rather than changing decisions they disagree with. In this case, perhaps the lowest court, who originally dismissed the case, had an entirely valid reason for doing so (other than "caving" to other gov't offices who want this to stay out of court).

If the plaintiff's case were somehow invalid (for a procedural or substantive reason) and that was the basis on which the court declined to hear the case, rather than saying "they're the gov't, they can do what they want, case dismissed" then the higher courts made the right decision to uphold the lower court's ruling. I, too, would love more information on the original case (haven't opened the links above yet to look, that's my next stop).
Upgraded! is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 1:11 pm
  #8  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 98,677
Originally Posted by jkhuggins View Post
See, that's what's unclear to me. The local court in Florida said it didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's unclear what the appeals court ruled; it could be that the appeals court simply ruled that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

On the other hand, it could be that the appeals court actually heard the case against AIT and threw it out on the merits.

Again ... I'd love it if someone who can speak lawyer could comment ...
If US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals don't have jurisdiction over matters involving the constitutionality of TSA searches, which court does? The Supreme Court that refused to hear the matter? They all have jurisdiction over the matter of constitutionality of TSA searches, even if they don't want to get involved in such matters.

The Courts listening to the Executive too much on whether or not administrative remedies have been pursued and/or are available makes a mess of things and really cuts off avenues.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 1:42 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
If US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals don't have jurisdiction over matters involving the constitutionality of TSA searches, which court does? The Supreme Court that refused to hear the matter? They all have jurisdiction over the matter of constitutionality of TSA searches, even if they don't want to get involved in such matters.

The Courts listening to the Executive too much on whether or not administrative remedies have been pursued and/or are available makes a mess of things and really cuts off avenues.
You seem to understand this stuff pretty well and also appear to have some familiarity with the underlying case; can you shed some light on the first court's reasons for dismissal/claims not to have jurisdiction?
Upgraded! is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 1:47 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Upgraded! View Post
You seem to understand this stuff pretty well and also appear to have some familiarity with the underlying case; can you shed some light on the first court's reasons for dismissal/claims not to have jurisdiction?
There's a specific law that says that certain types of rulings (and the essence of the case is what those types are) aren't the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but rather that the appeals courts have original jurisdiction. Corbett's argument is that the types of ruling that the law was meant for were ones where there was an administrative evidenciary hearing, which serves the purpose of the lower court and hence giving original jurisdiction to an appeals court to review that hearing makes sense. But this ruling (if it even is a ruling, which is the issue before the court) hasn't had an such hearing, so Corbett argues that it belongs in the lower court.

However, this issue is now definitively settled, so Corbett will presumably file a new action in the appeals court and we'll get a decision on its merits from that court.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 1:57 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
There's a specific law that says that certain types of rulings (and the essence of the case is what those types are) aren't the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but rather that the appeals courts have original jurisdiction. Corbett's argument is that the types of ruling that the law was meant for were ones where there was an administrative evidenciary hearing, which serves the purpose of the lower court and hence giving original jurisdiction to an appeals court to review that hearing makes sense. But this ruling (if it even is a ruling, which is the issue before the court) hasn't had an such hearing, so Corbett argues that it belongs in the lower court.

However, this issue is now definitively settled, so Corbett will presumably file a new action in the appeals court and we'll get a decision on its merits from that court.
So my understanding of your post above is that the appellate courts were not saying "we don't want to hear a case about TSA's use of AIT," rather they were saying "we will not require the lower courts to hear this case and uphold their decision that this is out of their jurisdiction"?

If my reading is correct then my understanding is that they were not so much saying "we don't want to hear the case about the machines," rather "we do not want to hear a case about whether the lower courts must hear a case about the machines" and it could very well be that once the case is refiled they will hear the actual case at hand, despite refusing to hear the case about who must hear the actual case at hand?
Upgraded! is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 2:31 pm
  #12  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 98,677
Originally Posted by Upgraded! View Post

If my reading is correct then my understanding is that they were not so much saying "we don't want to hear the case about the machines," rather "we do not want to hear a case about whether the lower courts must hear a case about the machines" and it could very well be that once the case is refiled they will hear the actual case at hand, despite refusing to hear the case about who must hear the actual case at hand?
That's far closer to it.

DHS has gotten what it wanted for now, which includes avoiding a jury of common Americans.

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 3:56 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,462
It is quite simple if Corbett wants his day in court he must file with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Congress has set up the TSA such that, that court is the only court that can hear such suits.

Corbett filed in another court and it was tossed. The Supreme agreed with the initial appeal. He just needs to refile with the court in Washington, D.C. and then as I said he will have his day in court.

FWIW court justification is often disputed. Typically though it is state vs federal.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 4:01 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 22,709
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
It is quite simple if Corbett wants his day in court he must file with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Congress has set up the TSA such that, that court is the only court that can hear such suits.

Corbett filed in another court and it was tossed. The Supreme agreed with the initial appeal. He just needs to refile with the court in Washington, D.C. and then as I said he will have his day in court.

FWIW court justification is often disputed. Typically though it is state vs federal.
It has been said that Corbet cannot present evidence in the appeals court. If true then what kind of justice is that?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Oct 1, 12, 4:30 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,462
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
It has been said that Corbet cannot present evidence in the appeals court. If true then what kind of justice is that?
What evidence? If evidence related to the nudi scope then that is correct - it should not have been heard. If evidence related to why he should be able to file in FL rather than in DC that is a different matter.

Issue is one of jurisdiction not of the merits of his complaint. Corbett wanted it in the 11th Circuit Court so that the case could be heard by a jury. Corbett evens says that:

“That’s the bad news. The good news is that the fight is not over. It simply must be continued without that jury, and with discovery and witnesses allowed to me at the discretion of the 11th Circuit.”


Corbett will refile in DC and continue his fight. That said once he refiles I have no idea what evidence he may or may not present at the DC Appeals court.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread