Sai, I think there is a copy/paste error in the filing. On page 2, in the section asking for information from the SEA incident, I find this:

v. all history of similar complaints any TSA, against any TSA, Logan police,
and/or Logan Airport agent

I assume Logan refers to BOS airport?

Yeah. Didn't notice that; thanks for pointing it out. Editing error. That's what I get for being sick.

Won't bother fixing it since it doesn't seem to hurt the request any to leave it in. Please LMK if anything else is messed up.

The courts have been bending over backwards to avoid actually doing anything to the TSA. Why should we expect anything different going forward?

The courts favor government in their decisions and that seems wrong to me. Close decisions should favor citizens, almost all court decisions restrict liberty in some manner.

You do realize that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted (in part) Sai's motion for summary judgment, on December 15, right?

"The Agency Defendants [including the TSA] shall respond to Plaintiff's [Sai's] administrative complaint regarding the incident at San Francisco International Airport on or before January 22, 2016."

The court ordered the TSA to do something, and the motion to dismiss the case was denied (in part). Well done.

2007 is the first date cited in EPIC v DHS.

never mind, not worth the rant

This is a question, not a criticism. Why not respond to
by reiterating that you were not seeking any unique, individual accommodation but rather what the clear, unambigous, explicit language of their own policy stated you were entitled to have? Namely, medical liquids in sufficient quantity for the reasonable duration of your travel.

Sure, they'll grant meaningless things. Where's the enforcement, though?

They claimed that they're changing the policy because they purport they have a right to stop people from traveling with more liquids than is "necessary" for a flight.

I claim they have no right to stop anyone from traveling with however much they want, when it's distinguishable from WEI or (not and) medically necessary. I rejected the fundamental basis of their claim for needing an individualized decision. They can change their own policy, so debating whether or not their (now probably former) policy allows it or not is moot. I'm going after the legality of the policy itself.

ETA: To put it another way: I categorically reject both the idea that I can be limited to an amount necessary for travel — that was their argument — and that smurfs have any ability whatsoever to determine how much is necessary. I did not ask what you said because doing so would play into their baseless claim.

It's not meaningless to get precedent that
a) everyone is entitled, enforceably, to get a timely response under the Rehabilitation Act (they claimed that yes they violated it but I can't make them)
b) agency delay of 2.75 years according to their own regulation is per se "unreasonable"

This step of enforcement was to get their answer. Next step, once I get the appeal response, will be to sue them for the policy itself.

Just yesterday on Twitter there was a report of a clerk who told a passenger:

and

Also a report of TSA throwing away a toddler's bottle.

Sadly this is 100% predictable and consistent. It flows inevitably from banning other innocuous things like water bottles.

My litigation from the SFO incident is aimed at the heart of this: the notion that TSA has any right to limit people to medical liquids or necessary amounts begin with, or ability to assess medical necessity even if it had the right to.

I am not and have never been interested only in relief that makes things better for me; let's face it, I have a pretty rare condition. If I win, this dies.

Yes, it's taken me 3 years to get this far — formal response — and that's just one step. But I don't plan on stopping any time soon. They messed with the wrong person, too many times. I look forward to adding this to my trophy collection. :D

It is very sad that TSA basically blames Sai. In its response TSA admit that 504 applies, admit Sai was denied his liquids; but then blames Sai.

TSA blame Sai for taking TSA at it published words that there is no size restriction.

TSA blames Sai for him not being reasonable. TSA suggests that its agents were reasonable and were trying to reach a meaningful accommodation, but SAI was the one who hampered the accommodation.

I'm traveling on Sunday so I'll keep my eyes open.

That's the TSA's MO: it's always the fault of someone else.