Not to mention the issue of "voluntary surrender", another serious hurdle and an argument that would no doubt show up in the government's brief.

The case is a double-loser.

Neither effort will be successful.

Who declared liquids as a National Security issue and was the declaration properly made?

I don't believe that there is one bit of evidence that demonstrates liquids present a threat and if there is evidence then TSA should screen for the threat, not just declare all LGA's over 100ml verboten.

The Department of Homeland Security.

Apparently so.

It doesn't matter what you believe. The people in charge of setting the rules believed there was a threat.

Agreed. The current situation is obviously a compromise, and is better than the original ruling that all LGAs should be banned from commercial flights.

Keep in mind, though, that the vast majority of people support the partial ban, along with nearly all the rest of the Security Theater measures.

I don't know what it would take to change the ruling, but it certainly isn't a class-action suit claiming "damages."

So, if DHS ruled that toothbrushes could only be in checked luggage that's the end of discussion, no means available to challenge the rule?

Sure there is.

https://www.justia.com/administrativ...atory-actions/

Good luck.

Thank you.

I notice that early on in the article you reference is talk about certain procedures that must be followed when agencies create new rules. I don't recall any notice in the Federal Register before TSA enacted thd current LGA rules.

TSA seems unwilling to comply with the law and those issues are best heard in court.

Congress gave DHS sweeping and extraordinary powers when it established the agency. The liquids ban was well within the Congressional mandate.

It's only proper if the government had administrative search authority to refuse to screen the liquids, and refuse to allow screened liquids to travel.

It's obviously not "voluntary" — it's on threat of refusal of travel. The threat has to be legitimate. (Put another way, it would not have happened "but for" the threat, which establishes causality.)

Even if the class cert doesn't work out, my personal claim remains, and is sufficient basis to get injunctive relief.

And that determination gets them substantial deference… but not infinitely so. They don't have the authority to refuse to screen items that are obviously not threats and easily screenable, and then on the basis of not screening them, refuse to let them travel.

What it takes to change it is injunctive relief, which is separate.

Apparent case of a person not being allowed to Opt Out of the Strip Search Machine.

http://elliott.org/the-navigator/air...tsa-screening/

I've always found that saying "My doctor told me to opt out" works fine.

I sincerely wish you luck. If you want to PM feel free.

The government made the liquids decision based upon evidence that terrorists were planning on using fairly easy to construct liquid bombs from readily available ingredients to blow up airplanes. Like this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/26727573#26723141

Do you really think that some federal judge is going to determine that your judgment that a liquid ban is unnecessary should be given precedence over the judgment of the federal agencies involved that it was necessary (because of the difficulty of liquid screening for these readily available ingredients)?

As I said, you're tilting at windmills if you think such a lawsuit has any chance in hell of success.

Which is scientifically impossible. There is no "liquid bomb" stable enough to transport to an airport and through a checkpoint, thus any such device would have to be made airside. The equipment required to do so does not exist airside.

Which is completely bogus on the government's part. Chemists know that there is no such thing; that is, the supposed reaction the government is "protecting" against cannot be done on a plane, because (among other things) it requires stability and more ice than a 747 carries.