According to this letter to Senator Warner of Virginia, dated August 2, 2007 the TSA claims it has Authority to Require ID.

http://www.dubfire.net/warner-tsa.pdf

"....(passenger) asks whether TSA may require a passenger to produce a form of identification, such as a Federal or State government issued ID, in order to fly domestically, TSA has Statutory authority to establish such a requirement. To date, TSA has no implemented this authority."

I can't say that there is anything new here. The TSA is under the impression that their charter would allow them to make everyone go through the security line wearing giant purple bunny ears if they claim it would help.

And given the various court decisions over the past few years, the TSA is probably correct.

If anything it is a "good" thing that they have not made this a hard requirement. And the fact we have reached this point is very very sad to me.

I would predict that the TSA knows what a firestorm would be created the first couple of times that such a policy strands passengers who had their ID stolen - especially those that had no way to recover the ID, and no way to rent a car to get home.

I also suspect that the TSA knows that an ID check really proves nothing.

This is relatively old news and is the basis many of us have used to refuse to provide ID when flying.

Should they choose to exercise this statutory authority it would almost certainly become a judicial issue, resulting in either a statutory or judicial change to the rule. But until it is actually tried nothing will come of it.

Given that the judiciary has seen fit to relieve the TSA of the burdensome requirement of actually publishing their requirements in the federal register (due to the overriding interest of security), it is highly unlikely that they will put a leash on them because they are requiring ID.

It is however plausible that if enough folks complain then congress will rope them in.

There is another reason that the TSA won't do it: No one at that agency wants to be on the hook for removing a security requirement, due to the small possibility that the removal would be somehow exploited as part of successful attack and blame would fall back on them.

Hence there are some burdensome things that the TSA is very reluctant to implement as it will be hard/risky to reverse the decision later. They could allow congress to force their hand (which allows them to point the finger if and when they need to) but that makes for friction with congress, which is also a bad idea.

I believe that wording has been there since day 1. However, as demonstrated in the Gilmore trial (and appeal) the TSA has never produced the actual Statute which stipulates this specifc power. It likely falls under the generic 'director may do whatever...' provision, which would still require posting in the Register and subsequent Congressional approval.

IOW just more obfuscation from the masters of it.

The TSA makes alot of arbitrary claims - few of which should pass judicial muster. We can start with their refusal to adhere to the terms of the Privacy Act.

It's nothing by hubris and arrogance - and no one is stepping in to cut them down to size.