Gilmore I.D. Case Thrown Out


The lawsuit I wrote about in my August/September Reason cover story, in which John Gilmore challenged airline I.D. requirements, has been thrown out by Judge Susan Illston.

However, she admits she wasn't able to judge on one part of his complaint–that the law requiring you to show I.D.s to get on planes is void for vagueness since secret. From her decision:

Because this claim squarely attacks the orders or regulations issued by
the TSA and/or the FAA with respect to airport security, this Court does
not have jurisdiction to hear the challenge. As a corollary, without
having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation,
if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as
to the merits of plaintiff's vagueness argument. This argument would
better be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, both of which
have jurisdiction to review these matters.

But she did not buy the argument that the requirement is an illegal search, or that it unconstitutionally restricts the right to travel.

NEXT: Proactive Policing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So let me see. . . .you cannot use certainforms of transportation unless you first register with the government and get their officially sanctioned forms of ID.

    You can’t get a job without registering with the government and getting their official ID.

    You can’t buy alcohol without registering with the government and getting their official ID.

    And you can’t notice this without having uberpatriots tell you to polish your tinfoil hat.

  2. Yeah, next thing you know they’ll be issuing us ID cards with unique nine digit number that can be used to identify every one of us! Oh…wait a minute…..

  3. I heard Janet J. was going to have here SSN tattoed on her right breast. We can call it
    “Indecent Identification”.

  4. Jennifer-

    You and I both enjoy making fun of the uber-hawks, but we’re both getting slimed a lot for it. I think the lesson is that when we stoop to their level they stoop even lower.

    I bring it up on this thread because (1) it contains a very nice piece of your satire and (2) the uberhawks aren’t active on this thread (yet, anyway).

    I’m calling it quits on the pre-emptive “uber-hawk” impersonations, at least for now.

  5. Thoreau-
    Yes, I saw what you wrote on another posting. I will not quit just yet, though, because I’m having fun AND it’s a good way to break writer’s block.

    Besides, it is a welcome relief to write something nasty from time to time. I’ve been making my living peddling home-decoration stuff on the Internet lately, which means I spend a LOT of time writing these oh-so-gushy descriptions about adorably cute girly-girl crap that I am embarrassed to have in my house. I swear, if I wasn’t so in love with my boyfriend I would hack off my hair, gain 250 pounds, cultivate acne and turn into a bull-dyke lesbian purely out of spite.

    (See how generous I am? THAT should give the hawks some fun ammunition.)

  6. Jennifer:

    My kinda’ woman 😉

  7. Uberhawken Slimemeisters?
    Can they be cured or should they be detained for the duration?

  8. “Slimeless in Texas?” Isn’t that an oxymoron?

    Heh heh heh.

  9. Jennifer,
    In deed!It qualifies as a dioxymoronic unsocial

  10. Anyone else getting turned on by Jennifer? I’m fantasizing about her and Shannon Love dyking out.

  11. Yeah, but which one would be the groom? Glad to see Reason is still fun after my hiatus . . .

  12. Blush. Had I known I’d one day cultivate comments like this, I’d’ve been a lot less insecure in seventh grade.

    You know what REALLY turns me on? Guys who go on eBay and bid on my auctions that aren’t selling. . .ooooh, I’m getting so *warm*. . . .

  13. Nice try Jennifer. Try that sales pitch in the AOL chat rooms, it ain’t gonna cut it here (unless of course pictures of you and Shannon dyking it out are for sale, in which case the comment boards will be empty until the auction closes).

    If Melissa from the public ed board is reading this, let this be a lesson. Sometimes guys really do want you just for your mind (or the thought of your mind playing with another female mind).

  14. Mo-

    Be careful what you say to the apparently underage posters. No joke here.

  15. t-
    Thank you and good point.

  16. I got carried away because my youngest sister is high school age, so I didn’t think.

  17. Mo-
    The sad thing is, you weren’t being a dirty old man, you were giving a young girl some very good advice.

    And I admit, I lied about my turn-ons. Any man who’d buy the stuff I have for sale this very second is probably gay, and however much men might be aroused by the thought of two women going at it, it does NOT work in reverse. Yucko.

  18. So in other words, nobody has a damn thing to say about Gilmore not wanting to show ID to get on a plane?

  19. all y’all whackos having unhealthy thoughts about jennifer,

    she called me “honey” yesterday! so, lay off or else there is a can of Texas whup-ass with your name on it 🙂

  20. Strangely enough, a friend of mine is grossed out by the thought of a little girl on girl action. Hmmm . . .

  21. Is anyone else suspicious that this “Jennifer” persona might be an outlet for some of Julian Sanchez’s more “libertarian” leanings…?

    My skim of the original post left me thinking that the judge dismissed the case about a vague law because there wasn’t enough info on the law in question. Doesn’t that kind of prove the point? Or, where in the constitution is the US granted the power to enact secret laws? Maybe that part of my copy was written in disappearing ink.

  22. If I were actually Julian Sanchez I’d be getting paid for my writing, which means I’d be a little more careful with it and there wouldn;t be so many typos like the one where I just replaced an apostrophe with a semicolon.

    Of course, with just the teensiest bit of encouragement I could be persuaded to e-mail you the address of my own little website. . .(cough, cough, ahem)

    But back on topic. If a case is “thrown out” of court, rather than tried and found lacking, does that mean there’s no chance of appeal to a higher court?

  23. Jennifer the ever-entertaining writes: “and however much men might be aroused by the thought of two women going at it, it does NOT work in reverse. Yucko.”

    Speak for yourself, sister! I love guy-on-guy.

    –Mona–(in TMI mode)

  24. “Judge: What is the rule, if at all, concerning identification?

    Lobue repeats why the government thinks that asking for ID is vital for safety purposes.

    Judge: I understand, you said all of that. You were saying the rule is not void for vagueness and we can move on. I just want to know what the rule is that isn’t void.

    Lobue: If you are asking me to disclose what’s in the security directives, I can’t do it.”

    As Yossarian said “Oh, God damn!”

  25. A French official was quoted this week as saying
    taht he had traveled the US by air and it was very vulnerable
    before the Nineleven attack. Can we want to go back?
    Even a little protection provides at least some hope.

  26. So. . .how long before you have to show ID for all public transportation, not just planes?

    A few days after 9-11 my boyfriend and I went to Boston for a concert, and parked in an underground garage beneath a big landmark building. Before we were allowed in, the BF had to show his driver’s license; I didn’t, being the passenger.

    I guess the theory was that anyone with a driver’s license in his wallet can’t possibly have explosives in his trunk. And it worked–so far, the Prudential Center has yet to be destroyed by a carbomb!

  27. DJ-
    I don’t think anyone is recommending that we go back to our naive old ways; it’s just that the ‘protections’ being installed are merely feel-good measures. Like my Prudential Center example–what the hell was a drivers-license check supposed to do against the threat of a carbomb in downtown Boston? I can think of several effective measures, but that’s not one of ’em.

  28. Wait a minute… we have secret laws??? Why wasn’t I informed of this?

  29. A couple of points.
    First to address Jennifer and Thoreau’s mocking of hawks. I am one of the ones in favor of the Iraq invasion/liberation. But I am against in theory all the ID stuff, including having to have a social security number. And I am against the government mandating bars and nightclubs to check ID’s. And I am mostly against form over substance in security procedures. But I travel a lot and I am always in the high threat bracket (a one way ticket, a male of military age, ect.) But so far I haven’t found the airlines to be too much more unreasonable than they were before 911.

    On the topic of Jennifer making out with Shannon Love; 1 I wonder what y’all look like. 2 It was questioned a while ago what the female terrorists get when the blow themselves up.

    The whole 72 virgin thing plays on what an insecure male that doesn’t get much sex wants. He wants virgins, because the chicks will have no one to compare him with. And he wants 72 of them because he thinks that makes him more of a man and he doesn’t know his limitations. Supposedly.

    So, I was trying to figure out what a woman from that culture would want. And, it is a little harder to figure out. But I am working on figuring out what the Koran and Hadith says. When I find out I will post it on a blog that I think y’all are reading and still commenting on, bearing in mind the 12 hour or so time difference.

  30. No one is EVER informed about the SECRET laws, silly. That’s why they’re secret.

  31. Sheesh. They want you to show ID to get on an airplane? What will these fascists think of next… searching you for boxcutters, bombs and pistols before you enter the boarding area? The bastards. And please – citing security as the reason they don’t want to publish their policies about who they search, and why… these paranoid freaks act like somebody would actually test their procedures and read their security policies looking for gaps to exploit.

    Talk about baseless, unfounded paranoia…

  32. Stephen Fetchet-
    Nobody’s complaining about checking for guns and bombs; we’re complaining about chekcing IDs. What, you think if Osama plans to fly somewhere he can’t find a fake ID?

    Unless you can prove that possession of an ID automatically negates the presence and/or danger of bombs, this whole thing is about power, not safety: “We demand you ID because, goddammit, we CAN!”

  33. She’s a slut

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.