Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Full Body Scanner and “Pat-Down” Case Filed by FlyerTalk Member
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a case filed by FlyerTalk member Affection regarding a challenge of the use of full-body scanners at airport security checkpoints by the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. Affection — also known as Florida resident Jonathan Corbett — first filed his complaint in a United States District Court, where it was “tossed”; then affirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals after a successful appeal. According to an entry in his weblog, Corbett vows “that the fight is not over, it simply must be continued without that jury, and with discovery and witnesses allowed to me at the discretion of the 11th Circuit (instead of by right, as a reasonable reader of the Constitution might assume that we had).” Some FlyerTalk members are disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court to decline from hearing the case. While Corbett does not outright deny allegations that this is a publicity stunt, he believes “that every citizen has a right to a trial by jury for constitutional grievances. The implications of this are clearly wider than my case against the TSA: by not taking this case, the Supreme Court has just chopped off a few more inches of our due process rights. In this case, it’s even more suspect because it was entirely unclear that Congress even intended to limit district court jurisdiction of my variety of case. The TSA has stretched Congress’ intent beyond any natural reading of their words, the district court bought it, the appeals court stamped it, and the Supreme Court ignored it. Truly sad.”
Here is a video in which Corbett demonstrates “how to get anything through a body scanner at an airport security checkpoint”:
Will Corbett be successful in his further attempts to challenge of the use of full-body scanners at airport security checkpoints by the Transportation Security Administration, or is he simply wasting his time and money? Is he truly attempting to protect the constitutional rights of citizens and visitors of the United States of America, or this is merely a publicity stunt?