Ruskai v. Pistole, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ruskai v. Pistole, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/47

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1392

MARY BETH RUSKAI ,

Pet i t i oner ,

v.

J OHN S. PI STOLE, Admi ni st r at or ,Tr anspor t at i on Secur i t y Admi ni st r at i on,

Respondent .

ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OFTHE TRANSPORTATI ON SECURI TY ADMI NI STRATI ON

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Li pez and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

I nga S. Bernst ei n, wi t h whom Moni ca R. Shah, Naomi R.Shat z, and Zal ki nd Duncan & Ber nst ei n LLP wer e on br i ef , f orpet i t i oner .

Sydney Fost er , At t or ney, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce Ci vi lDi vi si on, wi t h whom St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al ,Mar k B. St er n, and Shar on Swi ngl e wer e on br i ef , f or r espondent .

December 23, 2014


2/47

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. As someone wi t h a met al l i c j oi nt

r epl acement , Mary Beth Ruskai cannot pass t hr ough some secur i t y

checkpoi nt s i n U. S. ai r por t s under cur r ent Tr anspor t at i on Secur i t y

Admi ni st r at i on ( "TSA") secur i t y pr ot ocol s wi t hout submi t t i ng t o a

st andar d pat - down t hat i ncl udes secur i t y of f i ci al s t ouchi ng ar eas

ar ound her gr oi n and br east s t o l ook f or conceal ed met al l i c and

nonmet al l i c weapons. Havi ng unsuccessf ul l y pet i t i oned TSA t o

change i t s pr ot ocol s, she asks t hi s cour t t o f i nd t hat t hey vi ol at e

t he Four t h Amendment and f eder al di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on l aw, and

t o set t hemasi de. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we cannot so f i nd.

I. Background

TSA i s par t of t he U. S. Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y

( "DHS") . 6 U. S. C. 203( 2) . Congr ess cr eat ed TSA i n r esponse t o

t he event s of Sept ember 11, 2001, "and charged i t wi t h ensur i ng

ci vi l avi at i on secur i t y, i ncl udi ng t he screeni ng of al l passenger s

and pr oper t y t hat move t hr ough U. S. ai r por t s. " Redf er n v.

Napol i t ano, 727 F. 3d 77, 80 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; see al so 49 U. S. C.

114( d) ; Fi el d v. Napol i t ano, 663 F. 3d 505, 508 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

One of TSA' s pr i nci pal j obs i s t o keep passenger s f r om boar di ng a

pl ane wi t h expl osi ves, weapons, or ot her dest r uct i ve subst ances

( her eaf t er , "weapons" ) . 49 U. S. C. 44901.

Ther e ar e r oughl y 500 commer ci al ai r port s i n t he Uni t ed

St ates t hat each ser ve over 2, 500 passengers per year , wi t h most

l ar ger ai r por t s havi ng mul t i pl e t er mi nal s and, of t en, mul t i pl e

-2-


3/47

scr eeni ng l i nes wi t hi n t er mi nal s. See Fed. Avi at i on Admi n. , Repor t

t o Congr ess: Nat i onal Pl an of I nt egr at ed Ai r por t Syst ems ( NPI AS)

2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 7 , a t 4 , a v a i l a b l e a t

ht t p: / / www. f aa. gov/ ai r por t s/ pl anni ng_capaci t y/ npi as/ r epor t s/ hi st o

r i cal / medi a/ 2013/ npi as2013Nar r at i ve. pdf . Wi t h mor e t han 600

mi l l i on passenger s of al l sor t s car r yi ng myr i ad i t ems f l yi ng i nt o

and out of t hese ai r por t s each year , see Passenger s, Bur eau of

T r a n s p . S t a t i s t i c s ,

ht t p: / / www. t r anst at s. bt s. gov/ Dat a_El ement s. aspx?Dat a=1, TSA' s j ob

i s a chal l engi ng and ever - evol vi ng t ask.

Pl anes bl own out of t he sky i n Russ i a and at t empt ed

bombi ngs on U. S. ai r l i ner s i n r ecent year s have war ned TSA t hat i t s

scr eeni ng pr ocedur es must be capabl e of det ect i ng bot h met al l i c and

nonmetal l i c weapons. See 78 Fed. Reg. 18, 287 - 18, 291 ( March 26,

2013) . As anyone who f r equent l y f l i es knows, TSA' s pr i mar y

st r at egy f or copi ng wi t h t hi s chal l enge has been t o devel op and use

t echnol ogy: speci f i cal l y, wal k- t hr ough Advanced I magi ng Technol ogy

scanner s ( "AI T scanner s" ) t hat can det ect bot h met al l i c and

nonmet al l i c weapons on cl ot hed passengers. I mpl ement at i on of t hi s

st r at egy r emai ns a wor k i n pr ogr ess. I n t he f al l of 2010, TSA

r evi sed one of i t s St andar d Oper at i ng Pr ocedur es ( "SOPs" ) , cal l ed

t he Scr eeni ng Checkpoi nt SOP, t o i ncl ude addi t i onal pr ocedur es

ai med at detect i ng nonmet al l i c weapons. The new SOP aut hor i zed t he

use of t wo types of AI T scanners as t he pr i mary methods of

-3-


4/47

scr eeni ng at U. S. ai r por t s1, and adopt ed as a secondary scr een a

new "st andard pat - down, " whi ch i s an enhanced f orm of t he

pr evi ousl y used pat - down. Redf ern, 727 F. 3d at 80. The pr i mary

pr ot ocol r equi r es anyone want i ng t o f l y t o go t hr ough an AI T

scanner or t o submi t t o t he new st andard pat - down. I d.

The r ol l out of t he new t echnol ogy as t he pr i mar y

scr eeni ng met hod encount er ed si gni f i cant r esi st ance. The AI T

scanners were vi ewed by many as generat i ng, i n ef f ect , a nude

pi ct ur e of each passenger , many of whomwere not i ncl i ned t o pose

f or such pi ct ur es as a pr i ce of f l yi ng. See, e. g. , i d. TSA wor ked

t o devel op pr i vacy sof t ware ( known as Aut omated Tar get Recogni t i on,

or "ATR") f or t he AI T scanner s, such t hat no scr eeni ng agent had t o

personal l y exami ne AI T i mages f or weapons. Congr ess wei ghed i n as

wel l , passi ng t he FAA Moder ni zat i on and Ref or mAct of 2012, Pub. L.

No. 112- 95, 826, 126 St at . 11, 132, r equi r i ng TSA t o ensure t hat

al l passenger - scr eeni ng AI T scanners empl oyed ATR by J une 2012

( l at er ext ended t o May 2013) . Redf er n, 727 F. 3d at 81.

TSA has cont i nued t o expand i t s use of AI T scanner s. I t s

ef f ort s were set back when t he manuf actur er of one of t he t wo t ypes

of AI T scanner s TSA had i ni t i al l y depl oyed, t he so- cal l ed

backscat t er scanner , was evi dent l y unabl e t o devel op adequate ATR

1 TSA had begun usi ng some AI T scanner s as secondar yscr eeni ng t ool s f or sel ect ed passenger s at some ai r por t s i n 2007.Redf ern, 727 F. 3d at 80.

-4-


5/47

capabi l i t y, so backscat t er scanner s have been removed f r omai r por t

oper at i on. I d. Never t hel ess, t he gover nment asser t s i n i t s br i ef

t hat TSA "has depl oyed mor e t han 740 AI T machi nes at al most 160

ai r por t s and ant i ci pat es depl oyi ng appr oxi mat el y 80 addi t i onal

machi nes by 2015. " Even so, t here r emai n many scr eeni ng poi nt s

t hat yet l ack AI T scanner s, or wher e t hey ar e not i n use f ul l - t i me.

Ruskai ' s chal l enge i n t hi s case concer ns TSA' s pr ot ocol f or t hose

checkpoi nt s.

The pr i mar y scr eeni ng devi ce at checkpoi nt s l acki ng AI T

scanner s i s t he wal k- t hr ough metal det ect or ( "WTMD") . I n ot her

wor ds, at t hose checkpoi nt s, TSA ef f ect i vel y does not scr een most

passenger s' bodi es f or nonmet al l i c weapons, and wi l l not do so

unt i l AI T scanner s ar e i nst al l ed. Suf f i ce i t t o say, TSA credi bl y

cl ai ms t o be i nt ent on r educi ng t he number of such checkpoi nt s.

Ther e ar e several groups of passenger s f or whom TSA

r el i es on scr eeni ng t echni ques ot her t han ( or i n addi t i on t o) t he

WTMD and AI T scanners, i ncl udi ng peopl e who cannot medi cal l y go

t hr ough an AI T scanner or WTMD, who al armei t her pr i mary scr eeni ng

machi ne, or who ar e r andoml y sel ect ed f or addi t i onal scr eeni ng.

Many of t hose peopl e are subj ect t o t he st andard pat - down, whi ch

Ruskai descr i bes as i nvol vi ng a TSA agent t ouchi ng around her

br east s, f eel i ng i nsi de her wai st band, and r unni ng a hand up t he

i nsi de of each t hi gh unt i l r eachi ng t he gr oi n. Ot her s ( i ncl udi ng

chi l dr en, t he el der l y, i ndi vi dual s sel ected f or r andom addi t i onal

-5-


6/47

scr eeni ng, and t hose scr eened by opposi t e- gender TSA personnel )

r ecei ve a modi f i ed, mor e l i mi t ed, ver si on of t he st andar d pat - down.

Addi t i onal l y, TSA has opt ed t o i mpose mor e l i mi t ed

scr eeni ng bur dens on passenger s whomi t conf i r ms ar e par t of TSA' s

Pr eCheck pr ogr am. As descr i bed i n t he br i ef i ng, Pr eCheck of f er s

passenger members " expedi t ed scr eeni ng i n desi gnated l anes i f t hey

have been cl ear ed f or such scr eeni ng based on cer t ai n backgr ound

checks conduct ed pr i or t o t hei r ar r i val at t he ai r por t [ , ] " and a

more l i mi t ed pat - down i n t he event t hat t he passenger al arms a

WTMD.

Ruskai , whose j ob r equi r es her t o f l y f r equent l y, has had

t hr ee j oi nt s r epl aced, and at l east one of her r epl acement j oi nt s

i s met al . As such, she t r i gger s an al er t when she wal ks thr ough a

WTMD. I f , whi l e t r avel i ng, she pr oceeds t hr ough a PreCheck

scr eeni ng l ane, Ruskai , who i s a Pr eCheck member, i s supposed t o

r ecei ve t he mor e l i mi t ed pat - down f ol l owi ng her unsuccessf ul pass

t hr ough t he WTMD. As di scussed at great er l engt h bel ow, t he

government now al so cl ai ms t hat Ruskai may r ecei ve t he more l i mi t ed

pat - down, even i n non- PreCheck l anes, i f a boar di ng pass scanner

conf i r ms her Pr eCheck st at us. ( Ruskai di sput es how l i mi t ed t hese

" l i mi t ed" pat - downs r eal l y ar e. ) But i f t he checkpoi nt has no

Pr eCheck l ane, or cannot ver i f y Ruskai ' s Pr eCheck st at us, Ruskai i s

subj ect t o t he st andar d pat - down. She obj ect s t o t hi s pr ocedur e,

f i ndi ng i t "st r essf ul , " " i nvasi ve, " and "ext r emel y unpl easant . "

-6-


7/47

Whi l e many peopl e may have l ess sensi t i vi t y t o t he i ndi gni t i es of

t he sear ch, cer t ai nl y Ruskai i s not unusual i n f i ndi ng i t i nvasi ve

and di st ur bi ng, as has been made very cl ear t o TSA at , among other

t hi ngs, congr essi onal hear i ngs.

Ruskai ' s pr i nci pal ar gument i s, si mpl y st at ed, as

f ol l ows: si nce t he onl y r eason she r equi r es a f ol l ow- up sear ch i s

t hat she t r i ps t he WTMD, TSA shoul d sear ch her onl y f or metal , and

i t shoul d conduct such a metal - onl y sear ch usi ng a hand- hel d metal

detect or "wand" ( "HHMD") , suppl ement ed by i nspect i on of her medi cal

document at i on of t he i mpl ant and a pat - down of onl y t he ar ea t o

whi ch t he HHMD al er t s. TSA' s ref usal t o r est r i ct i t s sear ch i n

t hi s manner , she cl ai ms, const i t ut es an unr easonabl e sear ch under

t he Four t h Amendment , and vi ol ates sect i on 504 of t he

Rehabi l i t at i on Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. 794.

II. Jurisdiction and Timeliness

We begi n by conf i r mi ng t hat we have j ur i sdi ct i on t o

consi der Ruskai ' s pet i t i on f or r evi ew. Under 49 U. S. C. 46110,

wi t h cer t ai n except i ons,

a per son di scl osi ng a subst ant i al i nt er est i nan or der i ssued by t he Secr et ar y ofTr anspor t at i on ( or t he Under Secr et ar y ofTr anspor t at i on f or Secur i t y wi t h r espect t o[ cer t ai n] secur i t y dut i es and power s . . . ) i n

whol e or i n par t under [ Par t A of subt i t l e VI Iof Ti t l e 49 of t he U. S. Code] may appl y f orr evi ew of t he or der by f i l i ng a pet i t i on f orr evi ew . . . i n t he cour t of appeal s of t heUni t ed St at es f or t he ci r cui t i n whi ch t heper son r esi des . . . .

-7-


8/47

Nei t her par t y di sput es t hat TSA' s secur i t y pr ot ocol and

r ef usal t o gr ant Ruskai ' s r equest ed accommodat i on const i t ut e a

f i nal or der revi ewabl e by t hi s cour t . We agr ee. See Bl i t z v.

Napol i t ano, 700 F. 3d 733, 739- 40 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . Cf . Gi l mor e v.

Gonzal es, 435 F. 3d 1125, 1133 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( TSA secur i t y

di r ect i ve i s a r evi ewabl e "order ") ; Avi at or s f or Saf e & Fai r er

Regul at i on, I nc. v. F. A. A. , 221 F. 3d 222, 225 ( 1st Ci r . 2000)

( not i ng t hat t he t er m "or der " i s r ead "expansi vel y" i n sect i on

46110) .

A pet i t i on f or r evi ew "must be f i l ed not l at er t han 60

days af t er t he or der i s i ssued[ ; ] " l at e pet i t i ons ar e per mi t t ed

"onl y i f t her e ar e r easonabl e gr ounds f or not f i l i ng by t he 60t h

day. " 49 U. S. C. 46110( a) . The f i nal TSA l et t er denyi ng Ruskai ' s

r equest was dat ed J anuary 19, 2012, but post marked Febr uary 3. She

f i l ed f or r evi ew on Apr i l 2- - mor e t han 60 days af t er t he l et t er was

wr i t t en, but l ess t han 60 days af t er i t was sent . We asked t he

par t i es t o br i ef whet her Ruskai ' s pet i t i on was t i mel y. They agr ee

t hat i t was, and so do we. See, e. g. , Avi a Dynami cs, I nc. v.

F. A. A. , 641 F. 3d 515, 519 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ( concl udi ng t hat

" i ssui ng" means maki ng a deci si on publ i cl y avai l abl e) ;

Amer i copt er s, LLC v. F. A. A. , 441 F. 3d 726, 733 & n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r .

2006) .

-8-


9/47

III. The Record

We tur n next t o t he recor d, whi ch f or t hr ee reasons i s

somewhat unusual .

Fi r st , al t hough t hi s pet i t i on cal l s f or r evi ew of an

agency or der , t he or der her e was t he r esul t of i nf or mal agency

act i on, not an admi ni st r at i ve hear i ng or publ i c not i ce and comment .

St ar t i ng i n ear l y 2011, Ruskai submi t t ed a ser i es of compl ai nt s t o

TSA about bei ng r epeatedl y subj ect ed t o pat - downs. She f ound TSA' s

r esponses i nadequat e, and event ual l y f i l ed a compl ai nt wi t h DHS' s

Of f i ce f or Ci vi l Ri ght s and Ci vi l Li ber t i es, cl ai mi ng t hat t he

sear ches vi ol ated her Four t h Amendment r i ght s and di scr i mi nated

agai nst her on account of her di sabi l i t y. Near l y ni ne mont hs

l at er , DHS decl i ned t o open an i nvest i gat i on and di r ect ed any

f ur t her i nqui r i es t o TSA' s Of f i ce of Di sabi l i t y Pol i cy and

Out r each. On J anuar y 19, 2012, a TSA "pol i cy advi sor " wr ot e t o

Ruskai , not i ng t hat TSA coul d not ef f ect i vel y i nvest i gat e her

cl ai ms at t hat l at e dat e, but nonet hel ess r ej ect i ng her r equest

t hat she be of f er ed modi f i ed secur i t y scr eeni ng pr ocedur es.

Fol l owi ng t hat deni al , Ruskai f i l ed a pet i t i on f or r evi ew wi t h t hi s

cour t . The par t i es have gi ven t he cour t an admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d,

whi ch, i t seems, was l ar gel y compi l ed by TSA based on i t s r ecor ds

at t he t i me i t r ej ect ed Ruskai ' s r equest s.

Second, much of t he recor d i s seal ed, wi t h some por t i ons

unavai l abl e even t o Ruskai ' s counsel . Most of t hat seal i ng i s

-9-


10/47

because TSA exer ci sed i t s aut hor i t y t o desi gnat e cer t ai n

i nf or mat i on Sensi t i ve Secur i t y I nf or mat i on, and so l i mi t i t s

di ssemi nat i on. See 49 C. F. R. pt s. 15 and 1520.

Thi r d, t he under l yi ng f act s ar e not st at i c, as TSA

cont i nues t o pur sue i t s goal of expandi ng i t s use of AI T scanner s

and i t s Pr eCheck pr ogr am.

As a r esul t of t hese f act or s, bot h par t i es have sought t o

suppl ement t he r ecor d bef or e t hi s cour t .

A. Ruskai's Motion to Supplement the Record

Bef ore or al argument , Ruskai moved t o suppl ement t he

admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d by addi ng an af f i davi t about her scr eeni ng

exper i ences. Ruskai argues we shoul d consi der her st atement

because her si de of t he st or y i s not wel l r ef l ect ed i n t he cur r ent

r ecor d onl y because TSA f ai l ed t o i nvest i gat e her i ni t i al

compl ai nt s. Cf . Cousi ns v. Sec' y of t he U. S. Dep' t of Tr ansp. , 880

F. 2d 603, 610 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( not i ng t hat APA r evi ew i s nor mal l y

l i mi t ed t o t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d, but pet i t i oner s ar e not

pr ej udi ced as t hey may cont r i but e t o t he admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d

dur i ng t he agency pr oceedi ngs) . The government decl i ned t o t ake a

posi t i on on her r equest , and has wai ved any obj ect i on by

af f i r mat i vel y r el yi ng wi t hout obj ect i on on Ruskai ' s af f i davi t ;

accor di ngl y, we gr ant t he mot i on. Cf . Wi l dWest I nst . v. Bul l , 547

F. 3d 1162, 1176 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( mai nt ai ni ng t hat a cour t may

"consi der ext r a- r ecor d mat er i al s ( 1) when necessar y t o det er mi ne

-10-


11/47

whet her t he agency consi der ed al l r el evant f act or s i n maki ng i t s

deci si on; ( 2) when t he agency has r el i ed on ext r a- r ecor d mat er i al s;

( 3) when necessary t o expl ai n techni cal t er ms or compl ex subj ect

mat t er ; or ( 4) when t he agency has act ed i n bad f ai t h" ) . Regar di ng

Ruskai ' s br i ef , however , we not e t hat si mpl y because i nf or mat i on i s

avai l abl e on t he i nt er net , and ci t ed i n a br i ef , does not

aut omat i cal l y render i t ei t her evi dence or par t of t he

admi ni st r at i ve r ecor d.

B. The Government's Rule 28(j) Letter

Af t er or al ar gument , t he gover nment f i l ed a ci t at i on of

suppl ement al aut hor i t y under Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Procedur e

28( j ) , i nf or mi ng us t hat TSA r ecent l y expanded t he Pr eCheck

pr ogr am. Essent i al l y, t he gover nment cl ai ms t hat i f a TSA of f i ci al

conf i r ms ( usi ng t echnol ogy used t o scan boar di ng passes) t hat a

passenger qual i f i es f or TSA Pr eCheck f or a gi ven f l i ght , t hey can

r ecei ve PreCheck secur i t y t r eat ment even i n nor mal scr eeni ng l anes.

Ruskai obj ect s bot h t o t he use of Rul e 28( j ) t o i nt r oduce t hi s new

evi dence and t o t he gover nment ' s char act er i zat i on of t he

i nf or mat i on.

Rul e 28( j ) pr ovi des t hat "[ i ] f per t i nent and si gni f i cant

aut hor i t i es come t o a par t y' s at t ent i on . . . af t er or al ar gument

but bef or e deci si on . . . [ t he] par t y may pr ompt l y advi se the

ci r cui t c l er k by l et t er . . . set t i ng f or t h t he ci t at i ons. " Fed.

R. App. P. 28( j ) . Gener al l y, whi l e 28( j ) i s not st r i ct l y l i mi t ed

-11-


12/47

t o of f er i ng aut hor i t i es t hat di d not exi st at t he t i me of br i ef i ng

or oral argument , i t shoul d not be used t o i nt r oduce new argument s

or new evi dence. Uni t ed St ates v. Rodr i guez- Lozada, 558 F. 3d 29,

38 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; 16AA Char l es Al an Wr i ght , Ar t hur R. Mi l l er

et al . , Feder al Pr act i ce and Pr ocedur e: J ur i sdi ct i on 3974. 6 ( 4t h

ed. ) .

We have somet i mes acknowl edged such f act ual submi ssi ons,

however , at l east wher e t hey r ai se a quest i on of moot ness. See,

e. g. , Redf er n, 727 F. 3d at 83 ( wher e bot h par t i es agr eed i n

subst ance t o t he f act s i n t he gover nment ' s Rul e 28( j ) l et t er ,

seei ng "no di f f i cul t y" i n t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce of t hose f act s and

f i ndi ng t he case moot ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 631 F. 3d 573, 580

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( consi der i ng moot ness af t er t he gover nment i nf or med

t he cour t by Rul e 28( j ) l et t er t hat def endant was out on super vi sed

r el ease) . Cf . Pl easur es of San Pat r i ci o, I nc. v. Mendez- Tor r es,

596 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( not i ng t hat t he par t i es had not

f i l ed a Rul e 28( j ) l et t er on t he st at us of r el at ed l i t i gat i on, and

so t he cour t coul d not concl usi vel y r ul e t hat t he case bef or e i t

was moot ) . Al t hough t he par t i es do not addr ess moot ness, we are

obl i ged t o consi der t he i ssue sua spont e. See Over seas Mi l i t ar y

Sal es Cor p. , Lt d. v. Gi r al t - Ar mada, 503 F. 3d 12, 16 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) . I nsof ar as Ruskai seeks t o enj oi n TSA' s SOP as appl i ed t o

her , any change i n t he pr ot ocol coul d mat er i al l y i mpact her

ent i t l ement t o r el i ef . The new SOP does not , however , moot t he

-12-


13/47

ent i r e di sput e, as i t i s uncl ear how many ai r por t s and i ndi vi dual

checkpoi nt s ar e af f ect ed by t he r evi sed pol i cy.

I n any event , t he government has pr evi ousl y and

consi st ent l y mai nt ai ned t hat Ruskai ' s i s a "shr i nki ng pr obl em, "

because TSA i s t r yi ng both t o expand t he Pr eCheck pr ogr am and t o

i ncr ease t he number of passengers scr eened t hr ough AI T scanners,

subj ect t o r esour ce and pr ocess const r ai nt s. Thi s new i nf or mat i on

i s mer el y consi st ent wi t h t hose pr i or r epr esent at i ons. Al so,

Ruskai does not chal l enge t he bar e f act t hat PreCheck i s bei ng

expanded. We t heref ore accept t he government ' s r epr esent at i on,

t hough i t i t sel f i s of l i t t l e r el evance t o our r evi ew because t he

government has of f ered f ew detai l s on i mpl ement at i on.

C. Ruskai's Second Motion to Supplement

Ruskai more recent l y f i l ed a second mot i on t o suppl ement

t he r ecor d. I n t hi s second mot i on, she i ncl udes her own

suppl ement al af f i davi t and t he af f i davi t of an observer who

wi t nessed her proceed t hr ough secur i t y. She asser t s that , on si x

t r i ps t hat she t ook si nce J anuary 2014 ( when oral argument was hel d

i n t hi s case) , she was i n f act abl e t o access PreCheck ent r y, but

on f our of t hose occasi ons ( when AI T scanner s wer e unavai l abl e) she

was st i l l subj ect ed t o a pat - down t hat , she cl ai ms, was mor e

i nvasi ve t han pr evi ous PreCheck l i mi t ed pat - downs she had recei ved,

and whi ch made her " ver y uncomf ort abl e. " Accordi ngl y, she now

cl ai ms, "t her e i s l i t t l e di st i nct i on" bet ween Pr eCheck l i mi t ed pat -

-13-


14/47

downs and st andard pat - downs. The government t akes no posi t i on on

t hi s mot i on. We al l ow i t s f i l i ng, agai n whi l e r ecogni zi ng i t s

l i mi t ed rel evance because t he agency deci si on on revi ew i n t hi s

case i ncl udes no chal l enge by Ruskai t o the l i mi t ed pat - down used

under t he Pr eCheck pr ogr am.

IV. Standard of Review

I n assess i ng Ruskai ' s chal l enge t o TSA' s secur i t y

pr ocedur es, our r evi ew i s l i mi t ed t o obj ect i ons she r ai sed bef or e

t he agency, unl ess she can show "a reasonabl e gr ound f or not maki ng

t he obj ect i on" t o TSA f i r st . 49 U. S. C. 46110( d) . TSA' s f i ndi ngs

of f act ar e concl usi ve "i f suppor t ed by subst ant i al evi dence. " I d.

46110( c) . Because sect i on 46110 does not speci f y a st andard of

r evi ew f or non- f act ual det er mi nat i ons, t he Admi ni st r at i ve

Pr ocedur es Act ( "APA") f i l l s t hat gap, such t hat we r evi ew

quest i ons of l aw de novo and set asi de TSA' s deci si on i f i t i s

"ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous. " 5 U. S. C. 706( 1) . Under t hat

st andard, we assess whet her t he "agency has exami ned t he per t i nent

evi dence, consi der ed t he r el evant f act or s, and ar t i cul at ed a

sat i sf actor y expl anat i on f or i t s act i on i ncl udi ng a r at i onal

connect i on between t he f act s f ound and t he choi ce made. " Penobscot

Ai r Ser vs. , Ltd. v. F. A. A. , 164 F. 3d 713, 719 ( 1st Ci r . 1999)

( i nt er nal quot at i on and al t er at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We al so set

asi de an agency deci si on i f i t i s "cont r ar y t o const i t ut i onal

r i ght , power , pr i vi l ege or i mmuni t y" or "ot her wi se not i n

-14-


15/47

accor dance wi t h l aw. " 5 U. S. C. 706 ( 1) , ( 2) . Ruskai ' s ar gument s

t o us pr edomi nant l y i nvoke t hese l at t er t est s. She assert s t hat

t he Scr eeni ng Checkpoi nt SOP accor ds wi t h nei t her t he Four t h

Amendment nor t he Rehabi l i t at i on Act .

V. Analysis

A. Fourth Amendment

The Four t h Amendment provi des t hat " [ t ] he r i ght of t he

peopl e t o be secur e i n t hei r per sons, houses, paper s, and ef f ect s,

agai nst unr easonabl e sear ches and sei zur es, shal l not be vi ol at ed,

and no War r ant s shal l i ssue, but upon pr obabl e cause. " U. S. Const .

amend. I V. I n most cases, r easonabl eness " r equi r es a showi ng of

pr obabl e cause, " but t hat st andar d "i s pecul i ar l y rel at ed t o

cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i ons and may be unsui t ed t o det er mi ni ng t he

r easonabl eness of admi ni st r at i ve sear ches where t he Government

seeks t o pr event t he devel opment of hazardous condi t i ons. " Bd. of

Educ. v. Ear l s, 536 U. S. 822, 828- 29 ( 2002) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Ver noni a Sch. Di st . 47J v.

Act on, 515 U. S. 646, 652- 53 (1995) ( warr ant l ess sear ches may be

j ust i f i ed by needs beyond or di nar y l aw enf or cement ) ; Nat ' l Tr eas.

Emps. Uni on v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, 667- 68 ( 1989) . The cour t s

of appeal s t r eat t r ansi t secur i t y scr eeni ngs as "admi ni st r at i ve" or

"speci al needs" sear ches, whi ch may be conduct ed, at l east

i ni t i al l y, wi t hout i ndi vi dual i zed suspi ci on, a war r ant , or pr obabl e

cause. See, e. g. , Von Raab, 489 U. S. at 675 n. 3; El ec. Pr i vacy

-15-


16/47

I nf o. Ct r . v. U. S. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. , 653 F. 3d 1, 10 ( D. C.

Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Aukai , 497 F. 3d 955, 959- 60 ( 9t h Ci r .

2007) ( en banc) ; Cassi dy v. Cher t of f , 471 F. 3d 67, 74- 75 ( 2d Ci r .

2006) ( Sot omayor , J . ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Har t wel l , 436 F. 3d 174, 177

( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( Al i t o, J . ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. De Los Sant os

Fer r er , 999 F. 2d 7, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( descr i bi ng ai r por t l uggage

sear ches as admi ni st r at i ve sear ches) .

I n a Four t h Amendment chal l enge t o a search l i ke t hat at

i ssue her e, 2 we assess t he sear ch' s reasonabl eness by bal anci ng

"t he publ i c i nt er est i n t he [ TSA' s sear ch] pr ogr am agai nst t he

pr i vacy concerns i mpl i cated by t he" sear ch. See Von Raab, 489 U. S.

at 679. Al t hough di f f er ent ci r cui t s have used var i at i ons on t hi s

test, 3 we f ocus on " t he gr avi t y of t he publ i c concer ns, " " t he

2 The part i es do not cr oss swords over whether t he scr eeni ngpr ocess i s one sear ch or sever al , and gener al l y seemt o t r eat i t as

one. We pr oceed accor di ngl y. Cf . Har t wel l , 436 F. 3d at 177.3 See, e. g. , El ec. Pr i vacy I nf o. Ct r . , 653 F. 3d at 10

( wei ghi ng "on t he one hand, t he degr ee t o whi ch [a sear ch] i nt r udesupon an i ndi vi dual ' s pr i vacy and, on t he ot her , t he degr ee to whi chi t i s needed f or t he pr omot i on of l egi t i mat e gover nment ali nt er est s" ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Kni ght s, 534 U. S. 112, 11819( 2001) ) ; MacWade v. Kel l y, 460 F. 3d 260, 268- 69 (2d Ci r .2006) ( assessi ng pr opert y sear ches on t he subway by wei ghi ng f actorsi ncl udi ng "( 1) t he wei ght and i mmedi acy of t he gover nment i nt er est ;( 2) t he nat ur e of t he pr i vacy i nt er est al l egedl y compr omi sed by thesear ch; ( 3) t he char act er of t he i nt r usi on i mposed by the sear ch;

and ( 4) t he ef f i cacy of t he sear ch i n advanci ng t he governmenti nt er est " ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ;Har t wel l , 436 F. 3d at 178- 79 ( wei ghi ng " t he gr avi t y of t he publ i cconcer ns ser ved by the sei zur e, t he degr ee t o whi ch t he sei zur eadvances t he publ i c i nt er est , and t he sever i t y of t he i nt er f er encewi t h i ndi vi dual l i ber t y" ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar quez, 410 F. 3d 612, 616 ( 9t h Ci r .

-16-


17/47

degr ee t o whi ch t he [ sear ch] advances t he publ i c i nt er est , " and

"t he sever i t y of t he i nt er f er ence wi t h i ndi vi dual l i ber t y. "

I l l i noi s v. Li dst er , 540 U. S. 419, 427 ( 2004) ; see Har t wel l , 436

F. 3d at 178- 79 ( appl yi ng t hese consi der at i ons i n t he ai r por t

checkpoi nt cont ext ) . Whi l e we wi l l not r equi r e t he gover nment t o

adopt t he l east i nt r usi ve pr act i cabl e al t er nat i ve, t her e must be a

f ai r l y cl ose f i t bet ween t he wei ght of t he gover nment ' s i nt er est i n

sear chi ng and t he i nt r usi veness of t he sear ch- - t hat i s, t he sear ch

must be a " r easonabl y ef f ect i ve means" f or f ur t her i ng t he i mpor t ant

gover nment i nt er est . See Ear l s, 536 U. S. at 837. Wi t h t hese

pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he r el evant f act s i n t hi s case.

1. Ruskai's Privacy Interest and the Intrusiveness of

the Search

Many of us have at some poi nt f ound our sel ves subj ect t o

a TSA pat - down- - i ncl udi ng the st andar d pat - down chal l enged her e.

Accept ed as mi l dl y annoyi ng or uncomf ort abl e f or some, t he st andard

pat - down i s exper i enced as qui t e an i nt r usi ve i ndi gni t y by many

ot her s, i ncl udi ng pet i t i oner Ruskai . The pr ocedur e she descr i bes

bei ng subj ect ed t o has many si mi l ar i t i es t o t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

descr i pt i on of a pat - down f or weapons i n Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1

( 1968) , i nvol vi ng an of f i cer "f eel [ i ng] wi t h sensi t i ve f i nger s

2005) amended 2005 WL 1661572 ( 9th Ci r . J ul y 18, 2005) ( deemi ng anai r por t sear ch r easonabl e "i f : ( 1) i t i s no mor e ext ensi ve ori nt ensi ve than necessar y, i n l i ght of cur r ent t echnol ogy, t o det ectweapons or expl osi ves; ( 2) i t i s conf i ned i n good f ai t h t o t hatpur pose; and ( 3) passengers may avoi d t he search by el ect i ng not t of l y" ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

-17-


18/47

ever y por t i on of t he pr i soner ' s body . . . [ i ncl udi ng hi s] ar ms and

ar mpi t s, wai st l i ne and back, t he gr oi n and ar ea about t he

t est i cl es, and ent i r e sur f ace of t he l egs down t o t he f eet . " I d.

at 17 n. 13 ( quot i ng L. L. Pr i ar & T. F. Mar t i n, Sear chi ng and

Di sar mi ng Cr i mi nal s, 45 J . Cr i m. L. , Cr i mi nol ogy & Pol i ce Sci . 481

( 1954) ) . The Cour t cal l ed t he sear ch "a ser i ous i nt r usi on upon t he

sanct i t y of t he per son, whi ch may i nf l i ct gr eat i ndi gni t y and

ar ouse st r ong r esent ment " whi ch " i s not t o be under t aken l i ght l y. "

I d. at 17. Whi l e Ruskai f ai r l y r el i es on Ter r y t o l abel t he

st andar d pat - down si gni f i cant l y i nt r usi ve, t he compar i son f i t s l ess

cl osel y t han she cl ai ms. Under TSA pr ot ocol s, gener al l y mal es

sear ch mal es and f emal es sear ch f emal es; part s of t he sear ch are

conduct ed wi t h t he back of t he of f i cer ' s hands r at her t han t he

pal ms or open f i nger s; pr i vacy i s of f er ed; and t he admi ni st r at i ve

nat ur e of t he sear ch i s much l ess accusat or y, especi al l y as member s

of t he t r avel i ng publ i c have become i nur ed t o t he conduct of

pr ecaut i onar y sear ches t hat r ar el y reveal any unl awf ul act i vi t y.

Cf . Har t wel l , 436 F. 3d at 180. We never t hel ess cer t ai nl y agr ee

t hat t he sear ch i s obj ect i vel y i nt r usi ve, al t hough not ever yone

wi l l necessar i l y f i nd i t as obj ect i onabl e as Ruskai does.

2. The Nature of the Government's Interest

On t he ot her si de of t he bal ance, t he gover nment r et ai ns

t wo key i nt er est s i mpl i cat ed by Ruskai ' s chal l enge t o i t s cur r ent

pr ot ocol .

-18-


19/47

Fi r st , and most obvi ousl y, TSA asser t s a cr i t i cal

i nt er est i n keepi ng bot h met al l i c and nonmet al l i c weapons of f

commer ci al f l i ght s. I t obser ves that , i n r ecent year s, nonmet al l i c

expl osi ves have become one of t he gr eat est t hr eat s t o avi at i on

secur i t y. 78 Fed. Reg. 18287- 01, 18291 ( March 26, 2013) . For

exampl e, on December 22, 2001, a t err or i st at t empt ed t o detonate a

nonmet al l i c bomb conceal ed i n hi s shoe. I d. I n 2006, t er r or i st s

i n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom pl ot t ed t o br i ng l i qui d expl osi ves ont o an

ai r cr af t where they woul d t hen const r uct and detonate a bomb whi l e

i n f l i ght . I d. Thr ee year s l at er , an Al Qaeda pl ot t o bl ow up an

Amer i can ai r cr af t usi ng a nonmet al l i c expl osi ve devi ce hi dden i n a

sui ci de bomber ' s under wear was f oi l ed. I d. Wor l dwi de, at t empt ed

t er r or i st act i ons i nvol vi ng nonmet al l i c expl osi ves have cont i nued.

I d.

Second, TSA t akes as i t s r el evant st ar t i ng poi nt t he

undi sput ed f act t hat , when a person t r i ggers an al ert at a WTMD,

TSA needs t o search t hemi n some manner , cer t ai nl y t o l ook f or t he

met al t hat t r i gger ed t he al ar m. Gi ven t hat a sear ch i s r equi r ed i n

such si t uat i ons, TSA suggest s t hat i t has an i nt er est i n usi ng a

sear ch pr ot ocol desi gned t o i dent i f y bot h met al l i c and nonmet al l i c

weapons- - a pr ot ocol t hat i t al so uses at AI T checkpoi nt s when a

passenger decl i nes t o pr oceed t hr ough an AI T scanner . I n adopt i ng

t he new scr eeni ng checkpoi nt SOP, TSA hi ghl i ght ed the benef i t s of

st r eaml i ni ng i t s oper at i ons i n a f or war d- l ooki ng manner t hat

-19-


20/47

f ocuses t r ai ni ng and r esour ces on t he t ypes of sear ches t hat i t

al r eady uses t o sear ch f or both met al l i c and nonmet al l i c weapons.

As a massi ve agency wi t h roughl y 60, 000 empl oyees and

r esponsi bi l i t y f or secur i t y at over 450 ai r por t s, What i s TSA?,

Transp. Sec. Admi n. , ht t p: / / www. t sa. gov/ about - t sa/ i deaf act or y ( l ast

vi si t ed Oct . 16, 2014) , TSA has a si gni f i cant i nt er est i n adopt i ng

pr ot ocol s t hat can be uni f or ml y and ef f i ci ent l y admi ni st er ed. 4

3. Balancing the Interests

Reduced t o t hei r essence, Ruskai ' s Four t h Amendment

ar gument s l ar gel y hi nge on f our poi nt s: ( 1) TSA must l i mi t i t s

sear ch of Ruskai t o a sear ch f or met al l i c weapons when she set s of f

a WTMD; ( 2) TSA has means of advanci ng i t s i nterest s ot her t han by

pat t i ng down passengers who al arm a WTMD; ( 3) TSA cannot cl ai m t o

have a subst ant i al need t o pat down passengers f or nonmetal l i c

weapons because i t al l ows most passengers t o boar d pl anes wi t h j ust

a WTMD sear ch when AI T scanner s are unavai l abl e ( and does not

r equi r e pat - downs at f or ei gn pr ecl ear ance ai r por t s) ; and ( 4) t he

met hod TSA uses t o det er mi ne who r ecei ves a st andar d pat - down i s

4 Ruskai cri t i ci zes TSA' s r el i ance, i n adopt i ng t he r evi sedpr ot ocol s, on t he i dea t hat ( l ar gel y) r epl aci ng HHMDs wi t h st andar dpat - downs hel ps TSA keep i t s procedur es "st r eaml i ned and

ef f ect i ve, " cl ai mi ng t hat t he ef f i ci ency r at i onal e i s unpr oven and" i nsuf f i ci ent t o war r ant t he r epeat ed use of t he [ st andar d] pat -down on an ext r emel y l ow- r i sk segment of t he t r avel i ng publ i c. " I nour vi ew, however , t he ef f i ci ency and t r ai ni ng advant ages of ai mi ngt o r educe t he number of di f f er ent scr eeni ng pr ot ocol s, and f ocusi ngon t hose t hat wi l l be of t he most use i n t he f ut ur e, ar e f ai r l yobvi ous.

-20-


21/47

unr easonabl e. We addr ess t hese argument s i n t ur n.

a. Scope of the Search

Ruskai r easons t hat because she i s pul l ed out of l i ne f or

a sear ch onl y because her i mpl ant s t r i gger t he WTMD, TSA can search

her onl y f or metal , whi ch i t can do adequatel y usi ng a HHMD.

Ot her wi se, she cl ai ms, t he sear ch i s not " r easonabl y rel at ed i n

scope" t o t he ci r cumst ances gi vi ng r i se t o i t . Ter r y, 392 U. S. at

20. I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument , she r el i es most heavi l y on t he

Second Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Al bar ado, 495 F. 2d 799

( 2d Ci r . 1974) . I n t hat case, when t he def endant was pat t ed down

af t er al ar mi ng a WTMD, of f i cer s uncover ed a package of count er f ei t

bi l l s wr apped i n al umi num f oi l . I d. at 802. The Second Ci r cui t

concl uded t hat t he def endant shoul d have had an opport uni t y t o

di vest hi msel f of any met al l i c obj ect s, be sear ched wi t h a HHMD, or

be subj ect ed t o some ot her si mi l ar l y l ess- i nt r usi ve pr ocedur e t o

f i nd t he of f endi ng met al bef or e he was pat t ed down. I d. at 807- 10.

That cour t i nsi st ed t hat a WTMD al ar m does not af f or d a l i cense t o

sear ch f or anythi ng, t hough i t di d acknowl edge t hat of f i cer s may

somet i mes i nvest i gat e nonmet al l i c i t ems, due t o t he r i sk of , e. g. ,

pl ast i c expl osi ves. I d.

For t y year s of exper i ence di mi ni sh any per suasi ve f or ce

we mi ght have other wi se assi gned t o Al bar ado' s Four t h Amendment

anal ysi s of ai r por t sear ches. Al bar ado r est s on a pr esumpt i on t hat

t he pr i nci pal r i sk i s met al l i c weapons, and t hus i mpl i es t hat

-21-


22/47

sear ches f or nonmet al l i c weapons must be l i mi t ed t o si t uat i ons i n

whi ch ai r por t secur i t y ot her wi se "comes l awf ul l y upon a cont ai ner

whi ch may conceal such i t ems, " i d. at 809, or more general l y when

"speci f i c, ar t i cul abl e f act s exi st t o suppor t " a r easonabl e bel i ef

t hat a danger exi st s, i d. at 810. Taken t o i t s l ogi cal concl usi on,

t hose presumpt i ons woul d mean t hat TSA coul d not search

admi ni st r at i vel y f or nonmet al l i c weapons wi t hout i ndi vi dual i zed

suspi ci on, at l east i f t her e wer e no AI T t echnol ogy avai l abl e. We

doubt t hat t he Al bar ado cour t i t sel f woul d so hol d i f i t had t he

benef i t of consi der i ng TSA' s wel l - suppor t ed f i ndi ngs t hat

nonmet al l i c weapons ar e now t he pr i nci pal t hr eat .

Mor e recent pr ecedent r ecogni zes t he t hr eat of

"expl osi ves i n l i qui d or powder f or m. " El ec. Pr i vacy I nf o. Ct r . ,

653 F. 3d at 10. The El event h Ci r cui t r ecent l y observed: "Numer ous

. . . i nci dent s of avi at i on t er r or i sm have i nvol ved nonmet al l i c

expl osi ves. " Cor bet t v. Tr ansp. Sec. Admi n. , 767 F. 3d 1171, 1180

( 11t h Ci r . 2014) . "Met al det ector s cannot al er t of f i cer s t o

nonmet al l i c expl osi ves, and t he Uni t ed St at es enj oys f l exi bi l i t y i n

sel ect i ng f r omamong r easonabl e al t er nat i ves f or an admi ni st r at i ve

sear ch. " I d. at 1181.

Cont r ar y t o Ruskai ' s unsuppor t ed asser t i ons, t he f act

t hat a WTMD al ert s TSA t o Ruskai ' s metal l i c i mpl ant s does not mean

t hat she i s l ess l i kel y to have a nonmet al l i c weapon ( t hough t he

r ecor d i s equi vocal on whet her i t makes i t any mor e l i kel y,

-22-


23/47

ei t her ) . The WTMD al er t t hus does not , we concl ude, l i mi t t he

number or t ype of TSA' s i nt er est s i n conduct i ng a sear ch. I nst ead,

t he WTMD al arm expl ai ns why Ruskai i s one of t he passengers whom

TSA sel ect s f or a search suf f i ci ent t o l ocat e t he pr i nci pal weapons

wi t h whi ch i t i s concer ned. Whet her t hat sel ect i on cr i t er i on i s a

r easonabl e one we di scuss at gr eat er l engt h bel ow.

b. Alternative Means

Ruskai ur ges t hat we f i nd TSA' s s t andar d pat - down pol i cy

unconst i t ut i onal because TSA coul d empl oy a l ess i nt r usi ve sear ch

t hat st i l l f ur t her s i t s l egi t i mat e i nt er est s. Al t hough Ruskai i s

cor r ect t hat cour t s somet i mes consi der al t er nat i ves t o t he

chal l enged sear ch or sei zur e ( as i n Al bar ado, or , e. g. , Bl ackbur n

v. Snow, 771 F. 2d 556, 566 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( not i ng t he exi st ence of

al t er nat i ve adequat e secur i t y measur es i n i nval i dat i ng a bl anket

pol i cy of st r i p sear chi ng pr i son vi si t or s) ) , t he al t er nat i ves'

si gni f i cance i s ci r cumscr i bed, as t he "Supr eme Cour t has r epeat edl y

st at ed t hat r easonabl eness under t he Four t h Amendment does not

r equi r e empl oyi ng t he l east i nt r usi ve means t o accompl i sh t he

gover nment ' s ends. " Cassi dy, 471 F. 3d at 80 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) . I n any event , we are not convi nced t hat Ruskai has

posi t ed any t r ul y wor kabl e al t er nat i ve.

i. Modifications to PreCheck

Ruskai ' s f i r st pr oposal i s t o modi f y TSA' s Pr eCheck

pr ogr am. She argues t hat even when a checkpoi nt l acks t he

-23-


24/47

t echnol ogy needed t o conf i r mPr eCheck st at us, she shoul d be abl e t o

show TSA personnel medi cal r ecor ds conf i r mi ng she has an i mpl ant .

But t he secur i t y r i sks of r equi r i ng TSA t o si mpl y accept medi cal

document at i on as pr oof t hat Ruskai , or any ot her passenger , i s not

car r yi ng a weapon ar e obvi ous. Mor eover , Ruskai i s al r eady a

PreCheck member, and di d not cl ear l y chal l enge the sear ch pr otocol

f or Pr eCheck passenger s i n t he admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng, or i n her

pet i t i on f or r evi ew. 5 As PreCheck expands, her cause f or compl ai nt

shr i nks. And i f a checkpoi nt i s not abl e t o conf i r m Pr eCheck

st at us, i t woul d seem obvi ous t hat i t coul d not conf i r m t he

aut hent i ci t y of whatever medi cal document s Ruskai mi ght show.

Ul t i mat el y, t he pr obl emi s t hat t her e i s not yet Pr eCheck

capabi l i t y at al l checkpoi nt s wher e t her e ar e no AI T scanner s.

TSA, however , agr ees wi t h Ruskai t hat Pr eCheck shoul d be mor e

wi del y avai l abl e. I ndeed, t he agency r epr esent s t hat i t s cur r ent

5 At or al ar gument , Ruskai cont ended t hat t he mor e l i mi t edPreCheck pat - down i s al so unaccept abl e, and cont i nued t hat t heme i nher second mot i on t o suppl ement t he r ecor d. Her openi ng br i ef di dnot di st i ngui sh between the st andard and Pr eCheck pat - downs, and soarguabl y encompassed both. However , i n her r epl y br i ef , Ruskaici t ed t he mor e l i mi t ed PreCheck pat - down as bei ng an al t er nat i vet hat i s "mor e r espect f ul of passenger s' ci vi l r i ght s, " andr esponded t o t he government ' s argument about t he more l i mi t edPreCheck pat - down by assert i ng t hat " t here i s no r eason why sheshoul d not be abl e t o show t he car d at ever y secur i t y l ane . . .

and r ecei ve t he same benef i t t hat she woul d i n a PreCheck l ane. "Accor di ngl y, we consi der her obj ect i on t o t he Pr eCheck l i mi t ed pat -down r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me at or al ar gument , and so f or f ei t ed.See Fed. R. App. P. 28( a) ; Pi azza v. Apont e Roque, 909 F. 2d 35, 37( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( "Except i n ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances not pr esenther e, a cour t of appeal s wi l l not consi der an i ssue r ai sed f or t hef i r st t i me at or al ar gument . ") .

-24-


25/47

scr eeni ng pr ogr amcal l s f or cont i nuous expansi on of i t s use of AI T

scanners and PreCheck. TSA' s cur r ent use of both t echni ques and

i t s ongoi ng ef f or t s t o expand t hei r avai l abi l i t y per suade us t hat

i t woul d make no sense t o requi r e TSA al so t o devel op a syst emf or ,

i n ef f ect , usi ng medi cal document s i n l i eu of Pr eCheck. 6

ii. Resuming Reliance on HHMDs

Ruskai suggest s t hat TSA coul d si mpl y use HHMDs ( and

per haps a l i mi t ed f ol l ow- up pat - down) t o conf i r m t hat t he onl y

of f endi ng met al on her per son i s i n her j oi nt s- - j ust as i t di d

pr i or t o 2010. I n par t i cul ar , she emphasi zes t hat t hi s must be a

r easonabl e al t er nat i ve, because i t i s t he scr eeni ng appr oach t aken

i n sever al Canadi an ai r por t s t hat t he U. S. gover nment has i ncl uded

i n t he pr ecl ear ance pr ogr am.

As t o t he f or ei gn pr ecl ear ance ai r por t s, t he gover nment

cont ends t hat i t has not yet f ul l y compl et ed t he pr ocess of

cer t i f yi ng t hat t he Canadi an ai r por t s t o whi ch pet i t i oner r ef er s

pr ovi de a f ul l y adequat e l evel of secur i t y scr eeni ng. ( Of cour se,

t he gover nment seems t o al l ow passenger s t o f l y i nt o t he Uni t ed

St at es af t er such scr eeni ngs, and so must consi der t hei r pr ocedur es

at l east mi ni mal l y adequat e. ) Regar dl ess, f or ei gn ai r por t s i nvol ve

addi t i onal l egal and pol i t i cal exi genci es. I n our vi ew, i n

deci di ng how t o al l ocat e i t s l i mi t ed r esour ces, TSA may reasonabl y

6 Of cour se, a di f f er ent si t uat i on woul d be pr esent ed shoul dTSA change i t s programby abandoni ng i t s ef f or t s t o expand t he useof t hese t ool s.

-25-


26/47

choose not t o r equi r e f or ei gn ai r por t s t o use al l U. S. pr ocedur es

wi t hout compr omi si ng as a const i t ut i onal mat t er i t s abi l i t y t o

r equi r e somewhat more st r i ngent pr ocedur es domest i cal l y.

I n any event , use of HHMDs i s s i mpl y not an al t er nat i ve

means of f i ndi ng nonmet al l i c weapons. Rat her , i n pr oposi ng t hi s

al t er nat i ve, Ruskai i s si mpl y repeat i ng her scope- of - sear ch

argument t hat TSA has no l egi t i mate reason t o search her f or

nonmet al l i c weapons. We have r ej ect ed t hat argument because TSA

has r eason t o sear ch every passenger f or nonmetal l i c weapons.

iii. Additional Suggested Modifications

As f or t he ot her modi f i cat i ons suggest ed by Ruskai ,

i ncl udi ng her speci f i c r equest ed r evi si ons t o t he pat - down

pr ot ocol , we cannot addr ess t hem at l engt h wi t hout di scussi ng

seal ed mat er i al . Suf f i ce i t t o say t hat we have r evi ewed t he

r ecor d ( publ i c and ot her wi se) and ar e sat i sf i ed t hat Ruskai ' s

r equest ed changes t o t he pr ot ocol ar e not so obvi ousl y pr act i cabl e

and ef f ect i ve as t o r ender unr easonabl e TSA' s deci si on t o r ej ect

t hem. I n each i nst ance, mor eover , t he modi f i cat i ons Ruskai

pr oposes woul d under cut t he ef f i ci ency and st r eaml i ni ng i nt er est s

ci t ed by TSA. "[ T] he Uni t ed St at es enj oys f l exi bi l i t y i n sel ect i ng

f r om among r easonabl e al t er nat i ves f or an admi ni st r at i ve sear ch. "

Cor bet t , 767 F. 3d at 1181. I n Mi chi gan Dep' t of St at e Pol i ce v.

Si t z, t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat "Br own was not meant t o

t r ansf er f r om pol i t i cal l y account abl e of f i ci al s t o t he cour t s t he

-26-


27/47

deci si on as t o whi ch among r easonabl e al t ernat i ve l aw enf orcement

t echni ques shoul d be empl oyed t o deal wi t h a ser i ous publ i c

danger , " and that " f or pur poses of Four t h Amendment anal ysi s, t he

choi ce among such r easonabl e al t ernat i ves r emai ns wi t h t he

gover nment al of f i ci al s who have a uni que under st andi ng of , and a

r esponsi bi l i t y f or , l i mi t ed publ i c r esour ces. " 496 U. S. 444, 453-

454 ( 1990) ; see al so Ci t y of Ont ar i o, Cal . v. Quon, 560 U. S. 746,

764 ( 2010) ( "Even assumi ng t here were ways t hat [ t he of f i cers]

coul d have per f ormed t he sear ch t hat woul d have been l ess

i nt r usi ve, i t does not f ol l ow t hat t he sear ch as conduct ed was

unr easonabl e. " ) . Moreover , Ruskai admi t s t hat some of her pr oposed

al t ernat i ves woul d not sat i sf y her own vi ew of t he Four t h Amendment

st andard.

I n any event , t hi s i s not a case i n whi ch the gover nment

has t wo al t er nat i ve met hods of sear chi ng Ruskai f or nonmet al l i c

weapons, and si mpl y opt s f or t he mor e i nt r usi ve. The cur r ent st at e

of af f ai r s i s t hat at many ai r por t secur i t y checkpoi nt s, TSA has no

choi ce on how t o search f or nonmetal l i c weapons ( when i t chooses t o

do so- - a poi nt we addr ess f ur t her bel ow) . I t ei t her uses a

pat - down, or i t does not sear ch f or nonmet al l i c weapons at al l .

c. Effectiveness and Underinclusiveness

Ruskai cont ends t hat t he government cannot pr ove t hat t he

new scr eeni ng pr ot ocol s ar e suf f i ci ent l y ef f ect i ve even t o war r ant

t hei r adopt i on. She notes t hat t he Four t h Amendment r equi r es t he

-27-


28/47

sear ch t o be cal i br at ed t o t he r el evant r i sk, and t hat TSA i s

r equi r ed t o use r i sk- i nf or med eval uat i ons of , and choi ces about ,

t r anspor t at i on secur i t y. See gener al l y, e. g. , 49 U. S. C. 114( s) .

She mai nt ai ns t hat TSA has not conduct ed suf f i ci ent st udi es t o

demonst r at e t he ef f ect i veness of t he new pr ot ocol s- - nor can i t even

col l ect t he r el evant dat a, because an i ndi vi dual al ar mi ng a WTMD

wi l l pass t hr ough t o t he st er i l e ar ea of an ai r por t af t er a "cl ean"

pat - down, r egar dl ess of whet her t he under l yi ng met al i s f ound.

We acknowl edge that t here i s not t he same sor t of

ef f ect i veness dat a i n t he r ecord her e as cour t s have exami ned i n,

e. g. , sobr i et y checkpoi nt cases. Cf . Si t z, 496 U. S. at 453- 55 ( i n

consi der i ng t he l awf ul ness of sei zi ng car s at a sobr i et y

checkpoi nt , emphasi zi ng t hat "ef f ect i veness" i s par t of t he i nqui r y

i nt o " t he degr ee t o whi ch [ a] sei zur e advances t he publ i c

i nt er est , " and descr i bi ng as const i t ut i onal var i ous checkpoi nt s

wi t h det ect i on r at es of . 5%- 1. 6%) . Al t hough we cannot di scuss i t

at l engt h, t her e i s mor e suppor t i n t he r ecor d t han t hat ci t ed by

Ruskai f or t he gover nment ' s cl ai m t hat i t does exami ne t he

ef f ect i veness of i t s secur i t y measur es. ( Mor eover , an i mpor t ant

f unct i on of t he standar d pat - downs- - det er r ence- - i s not or i ousl y

di f f i cul t t o quant i f y. Cf . MacWade v. Kel l y, 460 F. 3d 260, 274- 75

( 2d Ci r . 2006) . ) And as not ed above, TSA i s al r eady t aki ng st eps

t o i mpl ement a mor e r i sk- i nf or med scr eeni ng pr ot ocol . Fi nal l y,

Ruskai has adequat el y shown nei t her t hat sect i on 114 i s pr i vat el y

-28-


29/47

enf or ceabl e nor why we shoul d accept i t as t he rel evant Four t h

Amendment st andar d.

A var i at i on on t he ef f ect i veness t heme i s Ruskai ' s

ar gument t hat t he screeni ng SOP i s, essent i al l y, i r r at i onal l y

under i ncl usi ve, and so cannot be consi der ed a reasonabl y ef f ect i ve

t ool f or combat i ng t r ansi t t er r or i sm. I f TSA wer e pat t i ng down

most every passenger when AI T scanners ar e not avai l abl e, t he

f or egoi ng di scussi on woul d l i kel y l ead easi l y t o t he r ej ect i on of

Ruskai ' s Four t h Amendment cl ai m. TSA does not , however , pat down

most passengers when AI T scanners ar e not avai l abl e. To t he

cont r ary, most passengers who cl ear t he WTMDs, whi ch sear ch onl y

f or met al , boar d ai r pl anes wi t hout any f ur t her sear ch of t hei r

per son. The r esul t i ng and si gni f i cant under i ncl usi veness of TSA' s

use of pat - downs r ai ses t wo quest i ons: Why does TSA not pat down

most passengers at checkpoi nt s l acki ng AI T scanners or PreCheck?

And gi ven t hat i t does not , why does TSA pat down any passenger s

( e. g. , Ruskai ) ? These quest i ons capt ur e t he cor e of Ruskai ' s

ar gument .

The answer t o t he f i r st quest i on appear s t o be t hat t he

pr ospect of pat t i ng down al l or most passenger s i ndi vi dual l y i s

l i ke t he pr ospect of st oppi ng al l car s on al l r oads at sobr i et y

checkpoi nt s: The scal e of t he oper at i on gener at es col l at er al cost s

t hat ar e not pr esent when a subset of t r avel er s i s sear ched. I n an

ai r por t , t hat cost woul d nat ur al l y i ncl ude a l ar ge expense i n

-29-


30/47

manpower and much l onger l i nes and del ays.

As f or t he second, mor e di f f i cul t quest i on, TSA has t wo

r easons t o sear ch t hose passengers who t r i gger a WTMD al ert f or

both metal l i c and nonmetal l i c weapons, even t hough i t does not

sear ch passengers who do not t r i gger a WTMD al ert f or nonmetal l i c

weapons. Fi r st , si nce i t must sear ch such passenger s f or met al l i c

weapons anyway, sear chi ng them f or nonmetal l i c weapons as wel l

of f er s an i ncr ement al benef i t wi t h l ow i ncr ement al cost . Second,

TSA has an ef f i ci ency i nter est i n t r ai ni ng i t s per sonnel i n a

l i mi t ed number of t echni ques, and pat - downs ar e the pr i mary

al t er nat i ve t o AI T scanner s.

Ruskai does not argue t hat no one shoul d be scr eened by

a st andard pat - down. Rather , she says t hat t he st andard pat - down

shoul d onl y be empl oyed when t here exi st s a suspi ci on t hat t he

par t i cul ar per son t o sear ch may pose an at ypi cal r i sk of havi ng a

nonmet al l i c weapon. I n our vi ew, i n t he cont ext of admi ni st r at i ve

or speci al needs sear ches, t he Supr eme Cour t has not r equi r ed t he

degr ee of pr eci si on t ai l or i ng advocat ed by Ruskai . Take, f or

exampl e, Ear l s, 536 U. S. at 836- 37. Ther e, t he Cour t r ej ect ed a

Four t h Amendment chal l enge t o a r equi r ement t hat mi ddl e and hi gh

school st udent s submi t t o a ur i ne dr ug t est i n or der t o engage i n

ext r acur r i cul ar act i vi t i es. 7 The Cour t r ej ect ed t he argument t hat

7 Al t hough t he Cour t not ed t hat " [ u] r i nat i on i s an excr et or yf unct i on t r adi t i onal l y shi el ded by gr eat pr i vacy, " t he degr ee ofi nt r usi on on one' s pr i vacy i nvol ved i n t aki ng such a sampl e depends

-30-


31/47

such t est s coul d onl y be gi ven on i ndi vi dual i zed suspi ci on, or

af t er t he school demonst r ated t hat t here was a dr ug pr obl emof some

t ype among t he gr oup chosen t o be t est ed. I d. Rat her , i t r el i ed

on t he cont ent i on t hat " t he saf et y i nt er est f ur t her ed by dr ug

t est i ng i s undoubt edl y subst ant i al f or al l chi l dr en, " and concl uded

t hat "t est i ng st udent s who par t i ci pat e i n ext r acur r i cul ar

act i vi t i es i s a r easonabl y ef f ect i ve means of addr essi ng t he School

Di st r i ct ' s l egi t i mat e concer ns i n pr event i ng, det er r i ng, and

det ect i ng dr ug use, " not wi t hst andi ng t he suggest i on t hat t he pol i cy

may have been over i ncl usi ve. I d. at 836- 38.

We acknowl edge t hat Ear l s i s not on al l f our s wi t h t hi s

case- - t her e, t he Cour t speci f i cal l y rel i ed on t he cust odi al

r esponsi bi l i t i es of a publ i c school , and char act er i zed t he sear ch

as negl i gi bl y i nt r usi ve. I d. at 830, 833; cf . Har t wel l , 436 F. 3d

at 178 n. 7 ( suggest i ng t hat t he "speci al needs" sear ch at i ssue i n

Ear l s was di st i nct f r om admi ni st r at i ve sear ches at ai r por t s) . We

nonet hel ess f i nd i t s gui dance i nst r uct i ve, and not e t hat whi l e t he

sear ch her e i s undoubt edl y mor e i nt r usi ve, gi ven t he scal e of t he

upon t he col l ect i on pr ocedur es. I d. at 832 ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar ks omi t t ed) . I n t hat case, a " f acul t y moni t or wai t [ ed] out si det he cl osed r est r oom st al l f or t he st udent t o pr oduce a sampl e and

[ had t o] l i st en f or t he nor mal sounds of ur i nat i on i n or der t oguard agai nst t ampered speci mens" and then sent t he sampl e f ort est i ng. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s pr ocedur e,t he Cour t concl uded, const i t ut ed a "negl i gi bl e" i nt r usi on, and t hei nvasi on of st udent s' pr i vacy was "not si gni f i cant . " I d. at 833- 34.But cf . i d. at 841 ( Br eyer , J , concur r i ng) ( not i ng t hat not ever yonemi ght f i nd t he pr ocedur e negl i gi bl y i nt r usi ve) .

-31-


32/47

r i sk, t he saf et y i nt er est s at st ake ar e al so dr amat i cal l y mor e

acut e. Cf . MacWade, 460 F. 3d at 269 ( di scussi ng Ear l s and not i ng

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t "never has i mpl i ed- - much l ess . . .

hel d- - t hat a reduced pr i vacy expect at i on i s a si ne qua non of

speci al needs anal ysi s" and so r ej ect i ng t he pr oposi t i on t hat a

sear ch of baggage on the subway i s onl y permi ss i bl e where t he

t r avel er has a di mi ni shed expect at i on of pr i vacy) . Mor eover , si nce

t he government "may deal wi t h one part of a pr obl em wi t hout

addr essi ng al l of i t , " Er znozni k v. Ci t y of J acksonvi l l e, 422 U. S.

205, 215 ( 1975) , " [ t ] he Supr eme Cour t has been skept i cal of

chal l enges t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y of sear ches under t he Four t h

Amendment t hat suggest t hat a secur i t y pol i cy' s r andomness or

i nsuf f i ci ent t hor oughness cont r i but es t o i t s const i t ut i onal

def i ci enci es. " Cassi dy, 471 F. 3d at 86.

I n sum, pr ecedent t eaches t hat a school can conduct

admi ni st r at i ve sear ches f or dr ugs by requi r i ng ur i ne t est s of f ewer

t han al l st udent s who mi ght be equal l y pr one t o use dr ugs, and

pol i ce may conduct sobr i ety checkpoi nt s on one road whi l e not

st oppi ng dr i ver s on most ot her s. So t oo, her e, t he f act t hat TSA

searches onl y some passengers f or nonmet al l i c weapons where i t

l acks an AI T scanner does not r ender t he sear ches unconst i t ut i onal .

And t hi s i s par t i cul ar l y so wher e TSA has a r easonabl e expl anat i on

f or why i t searches f or nonmetal l i c weapons on persons i t must

sear ch anyhow.

-32-


33/47

Cl ear l y, nei t her Congr ess nor TSA f i nds t he cur r ent

under i ncl usi veness i n scr eeni ng passenger s f or nonmet al l i c weapons

t o be accept abl e i n t he l ong r un- - hence TSA' s ongoi ng expansi on of ,

among ot her t hi ngs, AI T depl oyment . The cost bei ng i ncur r ed t o

i nst al l AI T scanner s, f or exampl e, makes concr et e t he ver y

subst ant i al wei ght assi gned by Congr ess t o t he t hr eat of

nonmet al l i c expl osi ves. And, as di scussed above, even t hough

pr agmat i c and ef f i ci ency consi der at i ons may out wei gh ( i n TSA' s

j udgment ) i t s i nter est i n scr eeni ng every non- AI T- scr eened

passenger f or nonmet al l i c weapons, t her e i s no di sput e t hat TSA

wi l l have t o conduct some f ol l ow- up sear ch on i ndi vi dual s who

cannot or do not pass t hr ough a WTMD wi t hout set t i ng i t of f . TSA

t hus adequat el y expl ai ns t he under i ncl usi ve nat ur e of i t s use of

st andard pat - downs i n a manner t hat does not bel i e the

j ust i f i cat i ons ci t ed f or conduct i ng t he search. 8

d. Irrational and Unfair Selection

Of cour se, i f t he sel ect i on cr i t er i a f or f ol l ow- up

sear ches i s i nvi di ous, t hen an ot her wi se reasonabl e sear ch mi ght

8 Ruskai poi nt s out t hat TSA s i nt er est i n st r eaml i ni ng mustnot be t oo gr eat because i t does not use t he st andard pat - down onal l occasi ons, such as when i t pats down a Pr eChecked passenger .

That TSA s pur sui t of an i nt er est has l i mi t s does not , however ,mean t hat t he i nt er est i s i nval i d or wi t hout wei ght . Speci f i cal l y,t he i nt ent i n st r eaml i ni ng i s not bel i ed by havi ng t wo l evel s ofpat - down searches, one f or t hose wi t h Pr eCheck cl ear ance and onef or t hose wi t hout such cl ear ance. Addi ng a t hi r d opt i on woul d, bydef i ni t i on, move TSA f ur t her away f r om i t s goal of r educi ng t henumber of sear ch pr otocol s.

-33-


34/47

i ndeed be suscept i bl e t o chal l enge. We cer t ai nl y do not r ej ect t he

possi bi l i t y t hat conduct i ng an ot her wi se r easonabl e admi ni st r at i ve

sear ch i n an unl awf ul l y di scr i mi nat or y manner mi ght vi ol at e t he

Four t h Amendment . Cf . Wayne LaFave, 5 Search & Sei zur e 10. 6(b)

( 5t h ed. ) ( i n di scussi ng pr of i l i ng, suggest i ng t hat a screeni ng

"pr ogr am i nvol vi ng some degr ee of nonr andom sel ect i vi t y can pass

Four t h Amendment must er onl y i f t he sel ect i on cr i t er i a t end t o

i dent i f y suspi ci ous peopl e, " and not i ng t hat t he "cent r al

consi der at i ons" f or assessi ng non- r andomcr i t er i a shoul d be whet her

( 1) some sel ect i on cr i t er i a i s necessar y t o avoi d over whel mi ng t he

system and ( 2) " i t r easonabl y appear s t hat any ot her basi s of

sel ecti on i s not l i kel y t o wor k at l east as wel l " ( ci t at i ons and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Br own v. Ci t y of Oneont a, 235

F. 3d 769, 776 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ( Wal ker , C. J . , concur r i ng i n deni al of

r ehear i ng en banc) ( not i ng t hat Four t h Amendment doct r i ne i n some

ways pr ot ect s agai nst di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement ) . Af t er al l , t o

const i t ut e a val i d admi ni st r at i ve sear ch, t he gover nment ' s sear ch

pr ocedur e must be a r easonabl e t ool f or f ur t her i ng i t s i nt er est .

But Ruskai has not adequat el y pr esent ed a di scr i mi nat i on- f ocused

argument as par t of her Four t h Amendment cl ai m. 9 Accor di ngl y, we

9 Cer t ai nl y, Ruskai ar gued i n her pet i t i on t hat TSA' s pol i cyi s bot h over i ncl usi ve and under i ncl usi ve i n t hat many ar e not f ul l ysear ched, and i ndi vi dual s wi t h i mpl ant s are r epeat edl y pat t ed downdespi t e posi ng no obj ecti vel y gr eat er r i sk of t er r or i st acti vi t y.But a general overbr eadt h or underbr eadth argument i s not t he sameas a cl ai m of i nvi di ous di scr i mi nat i on, and an over br eadt h cl ai ml i kewi se f ai l s under t he r at i onal e of Ear l s.

-34-


35/47

def er f ur t her consi der at i on of t hi s pr i nci pl e t o t he eval uat i on of

her cl ai munder t he Rehabi l i t at i on Act , di scussed bel ow. Cf . Whr en

v. Uni t ed St at es, 517 U. S. 806, 813 ( 1996) ( emphasi zi ng t hat , whi l e

t he "Const i t ut i on pr ohi bi t s sel ect i ve enf or cement of t he l aw based

on consi der at i ons such as r ace, " t he pr i mar y const i t ut i onal basi s

f or t hat obj ect i on i s t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause10) .

***

Ther e i s i n t hi s r ecor d admi t t edl y some f l avor of

bur eaucrat i c i ner t i a. Gi ven t he per t i nent t hr eat s, however , i t

seems t hat t he i ner t i a tends t o resul t mor e i n i nadequat e

screeni ngs t han i n excessi ve screeni ngs. I n t hi s r egar d, i t i s

r emarkabl e that t he admi ni st r at i on and Congr ess have not yet

managed t o achi eve f ul l AI T capabi l i t y, and cont i nue t o al l ow l ar ge

numbers of passengers t o boar d wi t hout any scr eeni ng f or

nonmetal l i c weapons. At t he same t i me, t hough, TSA i s a l arge

or gani zat i on, and i t s task i s daunt i ng. I mpor t ant l y, TSA i t sel f

cl ear l y f i nds t he cur r ent st at us quo unaccept abl e, and assures us

t hat i t i s i n t he pr ocess of gr eat l y reduci ng ( t hough per haps not

ent i r el y el i mi nat i ng) t he aspect s of i t s cur r ent pr ogr am t hat

t r oubl e Ruskai . Our r evi ew of how TSA conduct s secondary searches

dur i ng t hi s t r ansi t i on r equi r es, i n t ur n, some def er ence t o TSA' s

exper t i se regar di ng t he nat ur e of evol vi ng t hr eat s, how peopl e

10 Ruskai does not make an Equal Prot ect i on or sel ect i veenf or cement cl ai m.

-35-


36/47

behave i n ai r por t s, and t he capabi l i t i es of TSA' s wor kf or ce and

syst ems. Wi t hi n r eason, choosi ng whi ch t echni que best serves t he

gover nment i nt er est at st ake shoul d be l ef t t o t hose wi t h a "uni que

under st andi ng of , and r esponsi bi l i t y f or , l i mi t ed publ i c

r esour ces. " Cor bet t , 767 F. 3d at 1181 ( quot i ng Si t z, 110 S. Ct . at

2487. And as t he D. C. Ci r cui t not ed i n assessi ng pr e- ATR AI T

scanner s, t he Supr eme Cour t has r ef used t o decl ar e onl y t he l east

i nt r usi ve pr act i cabl e sear ch r easonabl e under t he Four t h Amendment ,

and const i t ut i onal pr ecedent does not demand t hat a sear ch be

"mi ni mal l y i nt r usi ve" i n or der t o pass const i t ut i onal must er .

El ec. Pr i vacy I nf o. Ct r . , 653 F. 3d at 10- 11; see al so Cassi dy, 471

F. 3d at 80. 11

I n sum, we concl ude t hat t he Four t h Amendment does not

pr event TSA f r om sear chi ng f or bot h met al l i c and nonmet al l i c

weapons on passenger s who t r i gger WTMD al arms j ust as i t does on

passenger s who decl i ne t o pass t hr ough AI T scanner s. Accor di ngl y,

Ruskai ' s Four t h Amendment cl ai m f ai l s.

B. Rehabilitation Act

Ruskai ' s next cl ai m i s t hat TSA' s secur i t y screeni ng

pr ocedur es di scr i mi nat e agai nst her i n vi ol at i on of sect i on 504 of

t he Rehabi l i t at i on Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. 794. Sect i on 504( a)

pr ovi des t hat no ot her wi se qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y

11We not e, t oo, t hat TSA t est ed and r ej ect ed sear ch techni quesmore i nt ensi ve t han t he st andard pat - down.

-36-


37/47

"shal l , sol el y by r eason of her or hi s di sabi l i t y, be excl uded f r om

t he par t i ci pat i on i n, be deni ed t he benef i t s of , or be subj ect ed t o

di scr i mi nat i on under any pr ogr am or act i vi t y" r ecei vi ng f eder al

f unds. At i ssue i s whet her TSA pr ocedur es subj ect her t o

di scr i mi nat i on under t he meani ng of t he Act .

Ruskai makes no cl ai mt hat TSA di scr i mi nat es agai nst her

i nt ent i onal l y i n usi ng the WTMD t o sel ect her as someone who must

pass a secondar y scr eeni ng bef or e ent er i ng beyond t he secur i t y

checkpoi nt . Nor coul d she. The WTMD i s a f aci al l y neut r al devi ce

ai med at det ect i ng met al , not di sabi l i t i es. Many di sabl ed per sons

pass thr ough i t wi t hout t r i gger i ng an al er t . Many non- di sabl ed

per sons t r i gger an al er t . Ruskai r el i es, i nst ead, on a t heor y of

uni nt ent i onal di scr i mi nat i on, whi ch she descr i bes as "di spar at e

i mpact . " She cl ai ms - and TSA does not seem t o deny- t hat most

persons who have a l arge metal l i c i mpl ant are sel ect ed by t he WTMD

f or a secondary search, whi l e most peopl e who do not have such an

i mpl ant ar e not sel ect ed. TSA al so does not chal l enge Ruskai ' s

cl ai mt hat she has a di sabi l i t y wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Act . And

i t pr esumes t hat many peopl e wi t h met al l i c i mpl ant s are si mi l ar l y

vi ewed as di sabl ed- - not because t he i mpl ant i t sel f i s a di sabi l i t y,

but r ather because t hey may have had a di sabl i ng condi t i on f or

whi ch t he met al i s a "mi t i gat i ng measure. " 29 C. F. R.

1630. 2( j ) ( 1) ( v) .

I n Al exander v. Choat e, 469 U. S. 287 (1985) , t he Supr eme

-37-


38/47

Cour t consi der ed t he quest i on "whet her pr oof of di scr i mi nat or y

ani mus i s al ways r equi r ed t o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of sect i on 504

and i t s i mpl ement i ng r egul at i ons, or whet her f eder al l aw al so

r eaches act i on by a r eci pi ent of f eder al f undi ng t hat di scr i mi nat es

agai nst t he handi capped by ef f ect r at her t han by desi gn. " I d. at

292. The Cour t "assume[ d] wi t hout deci di ng t hat sect i on 504

r eaches at l east some conduct t hat has an unj ust i f i abl e di spar at e

i mpact upon t he handi capped. " I d. at 299. At t he same t i me, i t

" r ej ect [ ed] t he boundl ess not i on t hat al l di spar at e- i mpact showi ngs

const i t ut e pr i ma f aci e cases under sect i on 504. " I d. The bal ance

st r uck by the Cour t was t o f ocus on whether t he government act i on

deni ed meani ngf ul access t o the gover nment benef i t at i ssue i n t he

case. I d. at 301- 02.

I n t he ensui ng t hree decades, t he Supreme Cour t has not

r evi si t ed t he i ssue of whet her and when a sect i on 504 cl ai mcan be

mai nt ai ned i n t he absence of di scr i mi natory ani mus. We

never t hel ess t hi nk i t wel l est abl i shed t hat what t he Cour t assumed

t o be so i s so- - pr oof of di scr i mi nat or y ani mus i s not al ways

r equi r ed i n an act i on under sect i on 504. See Eni ca v. Pr i nci pi ,

544 F. 3d 328, 339 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( not i ng t hat "a showi ng of

di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent or ani mus i s not r equi r ed i n cases al l egi ng

a f ai l ur e t o accommodat e") ; cf . Hi ggi ns v. New Bal ance At hl et i c

Shoe, I nc. , 194 F. 3d 252, 264 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "Unl i ke ot her

enumer at ed const r uct i ons of ' di scr i mi nat e, ' t hi s const r uct i on does

-38-


39/47

not r equi r e that an empl oyer ' s act i on be mot i vat ed by a

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus di r ected at t he di sabi l i t y . . . . [ A] n

empl oyer who knows of a di sabi l i t y yet f ai l s t o make r easonabl e

accommodat i ons vi ol at es t he [ADA] , no mat t er what i t s i nt ent ,

unl ess i t can show t hat t he pr oposed accommodat i ons woul d cr eat e

undue har dshi p f or i t s busi ness. " ) . I ndeed, DHS' s own r egul at i ons

pl ai nl y pr ovi de t hat "[ t ] he Depar t ment may not . . . ut i l i ze

cr i t er i a or met hods of admi ni st r at i on t he pur pose or ef f ect of

whi ch woul d: ( I ) subj ect qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual s wi t h a di sabi l i t y

t o di scri mi nat i on on t he basi s of di sabi l i t y. " 6 C. F. R.

15. 30( b) ( 4) . Whi l e act s of i nt ent i onal di scri mi nat i on cer t ai nl y

occur , and ar e act i onabl e, see Sumes v. Andr es, 938 F. Supp. 9, 12

( D. D. C. 1996) ( medi cal pr ovi der ' s f ai l ur e t o t r eat pat i ent sol el y

because she was deaf const i t ut es di scr i mi nat i on under sect i on 504) ,

t he di sabi l i t y l aws of t en have as t hei r t ar get act i on- - or i nact i on-

- t hat "i s pr i mar i l y t he r esul t of apat het i c at t i t udes r at her t han

af f i r mat i ve ani mus. " Al exander , 469 U. S. at 297. Thus, a cl assi c

cl ai m t hat an ar chi t ectur al bar r i er deni es a di sabl ed per son

meani ngf ul access t o a publ i c f aci l i t y r equi r es no pr oof of

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. See Abi l i t y Ct r . of Gr eat er Tol edo v. Ci t y

of Sandusky, 385 F. 3d 901, 907- 09 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) . Nor does i t

r equi r e t he t ype of sophi st i cat ed st at i st i cal evi dence t ypi cal of

di spar at e i mpact cl ai ms i n Ti t l e VI I cases. Cf . J ones v. Ci t y of

Bost on, 752 F. 3d 38, 48- 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( descr i bi ng t he use of

-39-


40/47

st at i st i cal anal ysi s t o show di spar at e r aci al i mpact as evi dence of

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on) .

When t he Supreme Court assumed t hat a di spar at e i mpact

t heor y coul d appl y i n an act i on under sect i on 504 i n some

si t uat i ons, t he si t uat i on i t i dent i f i ed was a case i n whi ch per sons

wi t h di sabi l i t i es wer e deni ed meani ngf ul access t o a gover nment

pr ogr amor benef i t . Al exander , 469 U. S. at 299. That excl usi onar y

si t uat i on may f ai r l y be descr i bed as t he pr i mar y t ar get of sect i on

504. I d. at 297. The pr obl em f or Ruskai i s t hat she can poi nt t o

no gover nment benef i t , ser vi ce, pr ogr am, or f aci l i t y t o whi ch TSA' s

chal l enged conduct deni es her meani ngf ul access . Her compl ai nt

t r ai ns onl y on t hose ai r por t checkpoi nt s t hat l ack bot h AI T and

PreCheck capabi l i t i es. Even at t hese WTMD- onl y checkpoi nt s, she

r ecei ves on each occasi on f ul l and compl et e access t o the secur e

si de of t he secur i t y checkpoi nt s. She al so r ecei ves f ul l and

compl ete access t o TSA' s secur i t y scr eeni ng pr ogr am.

Addi t i onal l y, Ruskai admi t s t hat TSA i s cer t ai nl y

ent i t l ed t o requi r e al l passenger s t o wal k t hr ough a WTMD, and t hat

i t i s ent i t l ed t o conduct a secondar y sear ch of al l who do not or

cannot pass t hr ough t he WTMD wi t hout t r i gger i ng an al arm. That i s,

she does not chal l enge the sel ect i on devi ce t hat i nadver t ent l y, by

detect i ng metal , generates t he subset of passengers we assume to

i ncl ude a di spr opor t i onat e number of t hose who have di sabi l i t i es.

Cr uci al l y, she al so concedes t hat t he secondar y sear ch i t sel f does

-40-


41/47

not af f ect a per son di f f er ent l y mer el y because the per son has a

di sabi l i t y. I n ot her wor ds, t he aspect of t he secondar y sear ch t o

whi ch she obj ect s i s an aspect t o whi ch she woul d equal l y obj ect i f

she had no di sabi l i t y.

Ruskai poi nt s t o no case l aw adopt i ng the vi ew t hat any

gover nment conduct t hat af f ect s a gr oup t hat i ncl udes a

di spr opor t i onat e number of per sons wi t h a di sabi l i t y ( e. g. , a gr oup

of Medi car e r eci pi ent s, or hospi t al pat i ent s, or r et i r ement r esor t

r esi dent s, et c. ) must be f r ee f r omany unpl easant ef f ect s, such as

dol l ar i mpact , wai t i ng t i me, or l ack of qual i t y, unl ess t hose

ef f ect s ar e f undament al or necessary to t he government ' s progr am.

And i t i s pr eci sel y t hi s t ype of ef f ect - - nei t her connect ed t o any

deni al of access nor mot i vat ed by di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent - - t hat

Al exander t r eat s as out si de sect i on 504' s t ar get . Al exander , 469

U. S. at 299, 301- 02. Speci f i cal l y, Al exander rej ect ed "t he

boundl ess not i on t hat al l di spar at e- i mpact showi ngs const i t ut e

pr i ma f aci e cases under sect i on 504. " I d. at 299. The Cour t

expr essed the concer n t hat because "t he handi capped t ypi cal l y ar e

not si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o t he nonhandi capped, " st r ai ght f or war d

appl i cat i on of di spar at e i mpact t heor y "coul d l ead t o a whol l y

unwi el dy admi ni st r at i ve and adj udi cat i ve bur den. " I d. at 298

( ci t i ng Not e, Empl oyment Di scr i mi nat i on Agai nst t he Handi capped and

Sect i on 504 of t he Rehabi l i t at i on Act : An Essay on Legal

Evasi veness, 97 Har v. L. Rev. 997, 1008 ( 1984) ) ; see al so Pat t on

-41-


42/47

v. TI C Uni t ed Cor p. , 77 F. 3d 1235 ( 10t h Ci r . 1996) ( "A f aci al l y

neut r al gover nment r est r i ct i on does not deny ' meani ngf ul access' t o

t he di sabl ed si mpl y because di sabl ed persons are mor e l i kel y t o be

af f ect ed by i t . " ) The "di spar at e i mpact " of whi ch Ruskai compl ai ns

appear s t o be j ust t hi s t ype of ef f ect deemed t o be i nsuf f i ci ent .

Ul t i mat el y, we need not r est our hol di ng on t he f or egoi ng

anal ysi s, concer ni ng whi ch t he case l aw i s spar se. Rat her ,

Ruskai ' s ar gument on t hi s appeal st i l l f ai l s even i f we assume t hat

one mi ght mai nt ai n a sect i on 504 cl ai m f or uni nt ent i onal

di scr i mi nat i on based on t he i mposi t i on of a bur den t hat does not

r esul t i n a l oss of meani ngf ul access t o a gover nment benef i t ,

ser vi ce, pr ogr am, or f aci l i t y, and t he ef f ect of whi ch i s not

enhanced by the di sabi l i t y.

Our deci si on i n Ther i aul t v. Fl ynn, 162 F. 3d 46 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) , i s i nst r uct i ve. Ther i aul t addr essed a chal l enge under

Ti t l e I I of t he ADA t o t he New Hampshi r e Depar t ment of Mot or

Vehi cl es' s deci si on t o r equi r e an i ndi vi dual wi t h cer ebr al pal sy

( who operated hi s car t hrough hand cont r ol s but whose hands were

vi si bl y shaki ng when he went t o r enew hi s dr i ver ' s l i cense) t o t ake

an addi t i onal r oad t est . I d. at 47. He passed t hat t est , and was

i ssued a r enewal l i cense. I d. We concl uded t hat t he ADA' s demand

f or "meani ngf ul access" was "not di r ect l y at i ssue" "as i t [ coul d

not ] r easonabl y be argued t hat Ther i aul t was deni ed ' meani ngf ul

access ' t o a government benef i t or pr ogr am" because he recei ved a

-42-


43/47

l i cense and New Hampshi r e di d not pr ohi bi t hi m f r om doi ng so. I d.

at 48. I nst ead, we not ed, Ther i aul t ' s cl ai mchal l enged " t he met hod

used t o determi ne access t o t he government benef i t , and hi s

cont ent i on i s t hat t he ext r a el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement i mposed upon

hi m. . . const i t ut ed di scr i mi nat i on based on hi s di sabi l i t y. " I d.

I n det er mi ni ng whet her t he i mposi t i on of an ext r a t est on Ther i aul t

as a condi t i on t o r enewi ng a dr i ver ' s l i cense const i t ut ed unl awf ul

di scr i mi nat i on, t he cour t f ocused on "t he st at e' s obl i gat i on i n

bal anci ng t he r i ght s of t he di sabl ed wi t h t he r esponsi bi l i t y t o

ensur e saf et y on t he r oads. " I d. at 49. Wr i t i ng f or t he maj or i t y,

J udge Cof f i n r easoned t hat when symptoms of a di sabi l i t y

"concededl y and obj ect i vel y r ai se a concern about

qual i f i cat i ons . . . t he publ i c ent i t y may engage i n i ndi vi dual i zed

i nqui r y i nt o whet her t he per son i s nonet hel ess qual i f i ed wi t hout

shoul der i ng t he bur den of def endi ng i t s ' di scr i mi nat i on' as

' necessar y' . " I d. at 50. I n r esponse t o Ther i aul t ' s ar gument t hat

t he st at e had other , l ess bur densome ways of assessi ng hi s

qual i f i cat i ons t o dr i ve, t he cour t poi nt ed t o weaknesses i n t hose

al t er nat i ves, and concl uded t hat t he stat e "cannot be f aul t ed f or

er r i ng on t he si de of caut i on when saf et y i s at i ssue, pr ovi di ng,

of cour se, t hat t he t r i gger i ng j udgment i s based not on st er eot ypes

but on observabl e, r el evant ci r cumst ances. " I d.

A si mi l ar anal ysi s appl i es her e. I ndeed, i t appl i es a

f or t i or i gi ven t hat TSA' s sel ect i on of Ruskai f or a st andar d pat -

-43-


44/47

down was made wi t h no awareness t hat she was di sabl ed at al l . The

ai m of t he st andard pat - down was not t o determi ne whether Ruskai

had a di sabi l i t y, but r at her t o det er mi ne whet her she car r i ed a

weapon. And, f or t he r easons st at ed i n Par t V. A of t hi s opi ni on,

we have f ound that t he sel ect i on of a scr een desi gned t o det ect

both metal l i c and nonmetal l i c weapons t o be r easonabl e. The

aspect s of t hat scr een of whi ch Ruskai compl ai ns af f ect per sons

wi t h and wi t hout di sabi l i t i es al i ke. And, once TSA det er mi ned she

car r i ed no weapon, t hat ver y determi nat i on gai ned her access

t hr ough t he checkpoi nt i r r espect i ve of any aspect s of her

di sabi l i t y. Col l ect i vel y, al l of t hese consi der at i ons el i mi nat e

t he f oot i ngs upon whi ch a sect i on 504 cl ai m can st and. As J udge

Cof f i n obser ved i n Ther i aul t , "when t he saf et y of t he publ i c at

l ar ge i s i mpl i cat ed, publ i c ent i t i es must be per mi t t ed some

l at i t ude i n t hei r j udgment s t hat i ndi vi dual i zed assessment s of

qual i f i cat i ons ar e necessar y. " I d.

Ruskai al so cont ends t hat i n or der f or us t o f i nd TSA' s

use of t he st andar d pat - down per mi ssi bl e as t he pr i nci pal secondar y

sear ch t echni que at WTMD si t es, we must f i nd the use of t hat

pr ot ocol " f undament al " t o TSA' s pr ogr am. To t hat cont ent i on, we

make t wo r esponses.

Fi r st , as i n Ther i aul t , because Ruskai has not been

deni ed access t o any pr ogr am, etc. , one coul d i ndeed concl ude t hat

t he gover nment her e need not pr ove t hat t he al t er at i ons t o i t s

-44-


45/47

sear ch pr ot ocol s sought by Ruskai woul d resul t i n a " f undament al

change" i n t he pr ogr am, or t hat i t s chosen appr oach i s "necessar y. "

Reasonabl eness may wel l be enough.

Second, even i f r easonabl eness i s not enough, what Ruskai

seeks woul d i ndeed seemt o r equi r e f undament al al t er at i ons t o TSA' s

secur i t y pr ogr am. She can poi nt t o no addi t i onal r easonabl e

accommodat i on t hat TSA coul d make so as t o el i mi nat e the bur den of

whi ch she compl ai ns wi t hout adver sel y af f ect i ng TSA' s ef f or t s t o

ef f i ci ent l y depl oy i t s r esour ces t o mai nt ai n ai r por t secur i t y as i t

t r ansi t i ons t o t ar get i ng nonmet al l i c weapons. TSA has been

i nst al l i ng AI T scanner s at mor e and mor e checkpoi nt s. I t has ampl e

r eason t o do so ent i r el y apar t f r om t hi s l awsui t . I n t he i nt er i m,

t o el i mi nate t he di spar at e i mpact of whi ch Ruskai compl ai ns, TSA

woul d have t o st op sear chi ng ever yone who t r i gger s an al er t at a

WTMD- - abl ed and di sabl ed al i ke- - f or nonmet al l i c weapons. Such a

change woul d requi r e TSA t o expand rather t han r educe t he use of

HHMDs, r educe t he number of persons sear ched f or nonmetal l i c

weapons, and el i mi nat e t he benef i t s i n st andar di zat i on, t r ai ni ng,

and f l exi bl e per sonnel assi gnment s t ha

Ruskai v. Pistole, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents