[Quote:]

On the Fourth of July in 2002, John Gilmore set out to fly from the West Coast to Washington, D.C. As things turned out, he never made the trip, mainly because the airline security folks wouldn’t let him board a plane. He hasn’t flown commercially from that day to this.

[..]

The facts are not in dispute. Gilmore’s petition identifies him as a founding employee of Sun Microsystems in California. On this Independence Day he intended to manifest his own independence by a dramatic gesture: He would fly to the nation’s capital — or attempt to fly there — and make a personal appeal to Congress. He would urge a law that would prohibit the airlines from demanding that passengers identify themselves as a condition for coming aboard.

(It is a measure of Gilmore’s idealism, or naivete, that he expected to appeal to members of Congress on the weekend of the Fourth of July. On this weekend, believe me, this town is as empty as a beer barrel after a bikers’ party.)

Sure enough, at the Southwest Airlines ticketing counter in Oakland, gate agents obliged him by asking for identification. He asked what authority they had for thus invading his privacy. They were unable, or unwilling, to cite chapter and verse. It was just something the FAA required. After some sparring around, the agents offered to give him a boarding pass if he would submit to a pat-down, a shoe search, a body scan by handheld magnetometer and a hand search of his luggage. This may have been a deal he couldn’t refuse, but he refused anyhow and left. Later the same day he tried his luck at the San Francisco airport. Same story.

[..]

Gilmore’s counsel asked to see the text of this gauzy ordinance. Judge Illston said the text couldn’t be disclosed to her at the District Court level, so — go ask the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He did as told. After much haggling and a secret “in camera” inspection, the Court of Appeals decided that Gilmore’s baggage could be tumbled under the authority of an “administrative order.”

This “order,” sometimes called a “security directive,” is of uncertain provenance. Whatever it is, the appellate court concluded that its text “does not have to be disclosed to the petitioner.” It just has to be obeyed.

Obey, Citizen!