If our civil rights can be taken away by private entities, in this case the airlines via the CofC, why is the government doing the screening? Should not it be the airlines that provide the screeners if it is their provision that we cannot fly until we have been screened?

To those who argue that the OP's cite refers only to handicapped individuals, are you saying that those of us who are not handicapped have no right to travel by air? That's discriminatory.

xxxxx

As much as I like what the EFF tries to do (and I was a member of it for awhile), they do have a rep for screwing up important cases like this one that can cause problems.

For those who don't know about Gilmore, he was one of the co-founders of the EFF.

That sucks. So I take it that SCOTUS is the only one that can change precedent?

*btw, I was a govie and SCOTUS was the term they used for the court, so I'll continue to use it.

xxxxx

Thanks. My point was simply that 'flying is a right.' You see that now. Q.E.D.

I'm not sure what point you think I was trying to make, that the rest of the quoted text nullifies, but I can assure you it wasn't mine. :)

Indeed we have. The arguments and counter-arguments have not changed, some of the participants have though. Or maybe it's just their user-ids ;)

deleted

You gotta admit though, TSA gives us a LOT of fodder to discuss. :)

And some on here make a lot of fodder out of nothing!

And of course, your nothing is our something. Just depends on how you look at it.

You only have to participate if you want to and if you have the time.

(Sigh)...I guess I'm powerless to stop the use of that acronym.

No, other courts can essentially nullify a precedent. For example, say a district court within the Ninth Circuit issues an opinion on a particular question of law. Later, in a separate case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues an decision on that same question. The old district court case is essentially irrelevant, at least on the question of law later addressed by the Ninth Circuit.

Likewise, the Ninth Circuit could later decide to overrule one of its earlier precedents.

As I read Gilmore, I didn't have the sense that EFF screwed up the case. Prevailing on the argument that you have a previously unrecognized fundamental constitutional right of any kind is an uphill battle, to put it mildly. Gilmore did make some procedural errors in the case, but the Ninth Circuit essentially overlooked them and addressed the merits of his claim.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I have a different understanding of this case.

First of all, I totally disagree with the Court. I believe it is unnecessary hair-splitting to recognize the right to travel, but not by any particular means.

I also think this was a terrible test case. The plaintiff has the means to hire any private mode of transportation. Furthermore, the dispute involved showing a form of ID, which a lot of people perceive as a rather trivial matter. This probably turned the judges against the plaintiff from the outset.

Consider a hypothetical case of a middle-class resident of Hawaii told: "Submit to body-cavity search or you don't fly!". I emphasize: The case is hypothetical. I venture a guess that the plaintiff would prevail. Obviously, this case is a total opposite extreme from Gilmore.

As I said before, I think there is a line somewhere. But I don't think the line has been drawn yet. Recall that it was a threat of a lawsuit that forced the TSA to modify its disgusting pat-down procedure. Also, TSA had to abandon its program of conducting passenger background checks after being repeatedly spanked by the GAO. This means that there is some "penumbral" right somewhere. I hope the issues become clear as other test cases are filed and heard. One can only hope.

And one more comment: I think "Implied Consent" is an intellectually bankrupt doctrine. It needs to be done away with, but I have not yet seen a good test case to accomplish it. A hypothetical example might be a sign at a city limit line that says: "By proceeding you give implied consent to be stopped and searched at any time". I don not believe any Court would allow this to stand.