TSA screeners win immunity from abuse claims: US Appeals Court [reversed 8/30/19]
Jul 13, 2018, 6:20 pm
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The courts are correct on calling on Congress to make laws, as that is how the government is supposed to work.
One of the judiciary's main purposes, however, is to make sure civil rights aren't violated, regardless of each situation's seriousness.
Since Congress is too polarized to get 60 votes to pass new laws, the result is the courts needing to overstep their intended boundaries to get anything done. With this ruling, the courts giving immunity to TSA workers is basically legislating from the bench. Nowhere is there a law written by Congress and signed by the president that says the courts are allowed to give immunity to TSA workers.
One of the judiciary's main purposes, however, is to make sure civil rights aren't violated, regardless of each situation's seriousness.
Since Congress is too polarized to get 60 votes to pass new laws, the result is the courts needing to overstep their intended boundaries to get anything done. With this ruling, the courts giving immunity to TSA workers is basically legislating from the bench. Nowhere is there a law written by Congress and signed by the president that says the courts are allowed to give immunity to TSA workers.
Congress determines who is immunized. Congress has immunized the category of federal employees which includes TSA Officers because they are not law enforcement officers.
All the court did is read the law, give its interpretation and note that it is up to Congress to change the law it wrote if it wishes to do so.
The question of whether Congress will do that either as a matter of policy or politics or perhaps a combination is up to Congress.
Jul 13, 2018, 9:51 pm
#18
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Jul 14, 2018, 6:53 am
#20
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
http://www.kabc.com/2018/07/13/exper...court-victory/
Are private screeners, such as those working for Covenant at SFO, are also covered by this blanket immunity?
“Their screeners behaved badly and an important thing that shows up in the actual case that was in the court is that the video tape of what went on disappeared, so you know who was probably telling the truth – probably the passenger because why else would there be no video? Because it’s the law that you have to have the screening area videotaped by the government.”
Jul 16, 2018, 12:07 am
#22
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Accountability will now be limited to whatever internal procedures TSA has set up. There will be no further accountability in court.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
Jul 16, 2018, 6:01 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Accountability will now be limited to whatever internal procedures TSA has set up. There will be no further accountability in court.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
Last edited by TWA884; Jul 16, 2018 at 7:10 pm Reason: Fix BB Code
Jul 16, 2018, 6:11 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
Jul 16, 2018, 8:24 pm
#25
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Accountability will now be limited to whatever internal procedures TSA has set up. There will be no further accountability in court.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
Hopefully this isn't the final word on the matter and Congress takes some positive (for the flying public) action. The LEO exception was added in 1974 to the FTCA after public outcry over abusive no-knock drug raids. I suppose the plaintiff in this case could try to appeal to SCOTUS.
Jul 17, 2018, 12:42 pm
#26
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Example: If an IRS agent initiates an audit of an individual based on legitimate discrepancies in their tax filings, and conducts the audit completely according to the law and within the bounds of IRS's internal rules and regulations and standards of behavior, then neither the agent nor the agency can be sued for harassment.
However, if an agent initiates an audit against his brother's neighbor, with no indication of any wrongdoing or discrepancies in the tax forms, and draws out the investigation despite no evidence of wrongdoing being found at any stage, merely because his brother doesn't like the neighbor's new pool or is jealous of the neighbor's new Mercedes, that's outside the law and violates the agency's internal rules. The agent can then be sued, because he didn't follow the rules. And if the agency itself fails to correct the violation, discipline the agent, and cease the investigation, then the agency can also be sued for failing to follow the law or its own internal rules and regulations.
But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a guy with a sense of justice and a modicum of common sense. Our actual legal system, screwed up as it is, may think differently than do I.
Accountability will now be limited to whatever internal procedures TSA has set up. There will be no further accountability in court.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
The idea is that the federal government does not want to keep getting sued every time one of its employees allegedly does something wrong, because the US treasury has deep pockets and would become an easy target for nuisance lawsuits. Therefore, Congress gave the federal government and its employees sovereign immunity, and directed each agency to come up with a procedure to handle these incidents instead.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from this, because they have more power and authority, and are therefore held to a higher standard. So if an FBI agent assaults you without justification and the FBI refuses to fix it, you can sue the federal government. But if your mailman assaults you, you need to work it out with the post office.
No, since they are not government employees, this would not apply to them. I'm not sure if there is some other relevant law that would grant them immunity, but I doubt it. I'm guessing that companies like Covenant have insurance to cover this.
With a cop, the situation is a little different. If a cop assaults you while on duty, he's broken both the law and the internal regulations of his agency, and can be both prosecuted and sued for his actions. If the agency covers up, condones, or even mandates the behavior, then the agency is also civilly liable, and any individuals in the agency who participate are criminally liable as well.
However, the definition of assault is different when it comes to cops, because cops are granted limited authority under the law to use physical force in the performance of their duties. If a cop is detaining or arresting you, he is allowed to physically restrain you. If you fight a cop while he's detaining or arresting you, he is allowed to use physical force to subdue and restrain you. And of course, if you attack the cop, he is allowed to use physical force to defend himself, just as any other person is.
Where it gets blurred is in HOW MUCH physical force, or WHAT TYPE of physical force, is appropriate. If a cop is trying to handcuff you and you pull your hands away, a cop is certainly allowed to grab your hands and bend your arms back to force you into submission. However, a cop is not allowed to shoot you dead for simply pulling your hands out of his grasp. If you punch a cop, the cop is allowed to use his baton or taser to defend himself and subdue you. However, if you're unarmed and punch a cop, he's not allowed to shoot you dead, run you over with his car, or beat you until your brains leak out your ears. Nor are cops allowed to physically abuse suspects who are physically restrained and pose no threat, to "teach them respect".
If a cop uses force which goes beyond that which is strictly necessary to defend victims, bystanders, his fellow officers, or himself, he's violated both the law and his agency's internal regulations, and is thus not protected by qualified immunity. He can be both prosecuted and sued, as can the agency if it condones, covers up, or mandates such unlawful behavior, either explicitly or tacitly.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who likes his civil rights the way the Framers intended them - sacred, inviolate, and unabridged.
Jul 17, 2018, 1:21 pm
#27
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
The way I understand qualified immunity, it does not cover acts that exceed the law or the rules of the organization.
The agent can then be sued, because he didn't follow the rules. And if the agency itself fails to correct the violation, discipline the agent, and cease the investigation, then the agency can also be sued for failing to follow the law or its own internal rules and regulations.
But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a guy with a sense of justice and a modicum of common sense. Our actual legal system, screwed up as it is, may think differently than do I.
The agent can then be sued, because he didn't follow the rules. And if the agency itself fails to correct the violation, discipline the agent, and cease the investigation, then the agency can also be sued for failing to follow the law or its own internal rules and regulations.
But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a guy with a sense of justice and a modicum of common sense. Our actual legal system, screwed up as it is, may think differently than do I.
Jul 17, 2018, 1:49 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Oct 3, 2018, 4:22 pm
#29
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
A federal appeals court decided to revisit its recent decision that made it difficult for travelers to sue U.S. airport screeners over claims of abuse at security checkpoints.
Court to reconsider immunity for screeners
Oct 3, 2018, 6:17 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111