USA Today
January 9, 2007
by Joan Biskupic

The Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a challenge to the federal government's policy of requiring airline passengers to show identification before they board flights, spurning arguments that the well-known but unpublished policy would lead to more secret laws.

John Gilmore, a founder of Sun Microsystems and an advocate of libertarian causes, sued the government because it has long refused to disclose the text of the regulation that forces air travelers to present an ID.

The question before the justices was whether travelers have sufficient notice of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ID policy to satisfy constitutional due process of law, which typically requires a law to be published so people know how to comply with it.

On July 4, 2002, Gilmore tried to board two flights from California to the Washington, D.C., area without showing identification. Airline workers told him that if he would not show an ID, he would have to undergo more extensive screening. He refused.

"I believe I have a right to travel in my own country without presenting what amounts to an internal passport," Gilmore told USA TODAY in 2004. "I have a right to be anonymous."

Gilmore's lawsuit drew support at the high court from several media groups, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

(Article Continues Below)

In court briefs, the groups stressed the importance of the public knowing what the law says and the need to hold officials accountable as they impose anti-terrorism measures.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices in a brief that telling passengers about the ID requirement at airports is sufficient, and he emphasized that the TSA directive is part of "sensitive security information." He said the directive is part of a broad policy aimed at preventing hijackings and other potential threats to passenger jets.

In denying Gilmore's appeal, the high court gave no explanation and had no public vote, as is its usual practice in declining to hear cases. The justices let stand a lower court's ruling that said Gilmore had enough notice of the policy because airline workers had told him about it.

Gilmore's attorney, Thomas Goldstein, said the federal government's refusal to disclose the TSA directive has the effect of misinforming people. "Passengers are consistently advised that federal law requires them to show identification," Goldstein wrote in the appeal. "Passengers in reality can generally travel even without showing proper identification . (if) they undergo a more extensive security screening.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here