Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Gilmore v. Ashcroft

My friend John Gilmore has been arguing against the indignities of privacy invasion by our government for a long time. Under post 9/11 homeland security excesses, he has had a lot more to fight about. Unfortunately, a US federal court shot down his lawsuit against our US Attorney General this week. The suit was filed after he was not allowed to board a commercial airliner because he refused to show identification.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted motions to dismiss John Gilmore's lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and government officials, saying the court may toss out cases when they're not based on a clear legal theory or when they are factually insufficient.

Illston also rejected Gilmore's claims that the ID requirement violated his constitutional protection from illegal searches and seizures.


The judge simply did not agree with his claims although the case is still alive since she refused to reach some of the issues for lack of jurisdiction.

The judge also tossed out claims that the vague regulations violated due process. But she did so because challenges to regulations from the Federal Aviation Administration or the Transportation Security Administration fall under the jurisdiction of the appellate courts.

Gilmore is undeterred.

"Judge Illston confirmed I do have standing to challenge but said, `You're in the wrong court,'" Gilmore said Tuesday. "I need to go to the court of appeals. I will continue working on the issue. This isn't the end."

You can be certain you'll hear about this case again. John has the time and the determination to see this through to SCOTUS if necessary, and he's not one to get discouraged over set-backs along the way. For background and a look at the pleadings, check John's website on the subject, freetotravel.org. And while you're there check out the rest of his site that details some of his many other projects.

By the way, the graphic for this post comes from John's site. He was kicked off another plane for refusing to remove that pin.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home