Jonathan Blitz v. Janet Napolitano
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24664
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Blitz, his wife Tuchinsky, and their minor child EB challenge TSA checkpoint screening practices at U.S. airports.
- Plaintiffs challenge use of advanced imaging technology (AIT) and invasive pat-downs as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
- District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing 49 U.S.C. § 46110’s exclusive appellate review.
- TSA Administrator Pistole declared that Checkpoint Screening SOP (which includes AIT and pat-downs) is TSA’s final decision implementing AIT; specifics of SOP are sensitive security information.
- The court held Checkpoint Screening SOP is an “order” under § 46110 and that § 46110’s exclusive appellate review does not violate due process or separation of powers.
- Appellants appealed the dismissal and argue the district court should review the SOP and the underlying security procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Checkpoint Screening SOP is an order under § 46110 | SOP is not an order reviewable in an appellate court | SOP constitutes an TSA order under § 46110 and is final | Yes; SOP is an order under § 46110 and is reviewable in an appellate court |
| Whether exclusive appellate review under § 46110 violates due process | Channeling review to courts of appeals deprives meaningful judicial review | Exclusive review is constitutional and provides adequate process | No; § 46110 does not violate due process or separation of powers |
| Whether the district court could resolve the jurisdictional question without reviewing the SOP | Record insufficient; discovery needed | Order capable of review on administrative record; no discovery needed | Record sufficient to determine § 46110 order status |
| Whether 46110 review is consistent with adequate record and final disposition | Review mechanisms inadequate for constitutional challenge | Court of Appeals may remand or supplement record; order represents final disposition | Consistent; final disposition supports appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Alexandria v. Helms, 128 F.3d 1467 (4th Cir. 1987) (administrative-record theory for exclusive review under § 46110)
- Virginia v. United States, 74 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 1996) (meaningful judicial review; preclusion of district-court review not implied)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (S. Ct. 2012) (court assesses whether Congress intended district-court preclusion; use statutory text/structure)
- Durso v. Napolitano, 795 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (district-court dismissal under § 46110 affirmed on appeal)
- Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency-record approach; § 46110 review can rely on record)
- National Taxpayers Union v. U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., 376 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2004) (meaningful review in court of appeals; channeling statutes permissible)