Why would it be lawful for the TSA to search through your underwear, but not lawful for them to feel you up? Where would the Constitution be drawing that line?
The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution.
Correct. My point is that SCOTUS has not said word one about these standards.
"Constitutionally reasonable administrative searches" in the context of an airport are legal, per SCOTUS. Consent has nothing to do with it, that concept does not apply here.
But, critically, SCOTUS has never ruled on whether the current TSA techniques are constitutionally reasonable. The only thing for sure is that the 3rd says that they must be 'minimally intrusive' and 'escalat[e] in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search'.
Nobody will cheer more loudly than I will if SCOTUS holds that electronic strip searches cross the line from "reasonable" to "unreasonable", but I don't know of a credible constitutional law source that predicts that they will do that, so baldly asserting that these searches are prima facie unconstitutional is a losing argument.
The case you've cited here is one where the 9th circuit held TSA's searches to be reasonable.
No, this case I've cited specifically says that magnetometer wanding and a pat-down over a duration of 18 minutes in search of a suspected weapon is a constitutionally reasonable administrative search.
My beef is with mandatory -custody- searches, which are implemented as either electronic/radioactivity scans of the entire flesh and/or full physical inspections of the body. These were not in use prior to the TSA's inception and nobody has ruled on whether they are constitutionally reasonable or not.
Heartily agree. The Circuit Courts seem to be in agreement, and the Supreme Court has declined to review appeals on this topic which were sent to them. This suggests that there is no Constitutional issue here which needs a decision.
Or in other words - NYC passed a law prohibiting the sale of sugary drinks over 16 ounces in size. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never made a decision on if that action is Constitutional. And I strongly doubt that it ever will. Does that mean the legality of the new law is under doubt? Absolutely not.
> The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution.
Well duh. Because the Constitution is inanimate, due to actually just being paper and ink. Meanwhile, SCOTUS consists of living people with free will and the ability to walk around.
However, nothing about these facts implies that what the Sovereign Council of Nine says is consistent with the ideals that led to the creation of said document.
The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution.