Jonathan Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 767 F.3d 1171

TSA issued a standard operating procedure (Oct. 29, 2010) using advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners as primary screening and pat-downs as secondary screening; scanners later upgraded (2013) with automated target recognition (ATR) to display a generic body outline.
Jonathan Corbett (pro se) challenged the scanners and pat-downs as Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches; he previously sued in a district court (Nov. 2010), which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari (Oct. 1, 2012).
Corbett filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit on Nov. 16, 2012 — more than two years after TSA implemented the procedure and more than 60 days after the agency’s order.
Statute: 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) requires petitions for review to be filed in a court of appeals within 60 days but allows filing after 60 days only for "reasonable grounds."
Procedural issues included whether the 60-day deadline is jurisdictional or a claim‑processing rule, whether Corbett offered reasonable grounds for delay, and whether the challenged screenings violated the Fourth Amendment.
Administrative record contained sensitive, proprietary, and classified materials; TSA moved to seal portions, and the Court considered nondisclosure and sealing requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 46110(a)’s 60‑day deadline jurisdictional?	Corbett implicitly treats timeliness as nonjurisdictional by filing late and arguing merits.	TSA relied on precedent treating the 60‑day limit as jurisdictional.	The 60‑day deadline is a non‑jurisdictional claim‑processing rule (not subject‑matter jurisdiction).
Did Corbett show reasonable grounds for filing after two years?	Corbett pursued district‑court proceedings and filed here after dismissal/cert denial.	TSA and courts notified Corbett that exclusive jurisdiction lay in the court of appeals; pursuing the wrong forum is not reasonable.	Corbett failed to establish reasonable grounds; petition dismissed as untimely.
If timely, do AIT scanners and pat‑downs violate the Fourth Amendment?	Corbett: scanners and intrusive pat‑downs are not narrowly tailored; less intrusive alternatives exist.	TSA: screenings are administrative searches justified by grave aviation‑security interests; ATR reduces intrusion.	Alternatively denied on the merits: the screening regime is a reasonable administrative search and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Should sensitive/proprietary/classified materials be sealed or disclosed?	Corbett sought access/unsealing and release from nondisclosure.	TSA sought sealing of proprietary, sensitive security, and classified materials.	Court granted TSA’s motion to seal and denied Corbett’s motion to unseal or be released from nondisclosure.

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 939 F.2d 954 (11th Cir. 1991) (previous Eleventh Circuit decision treating § 46110(a) deadline as jurisdictional)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (Supreme Court guidance distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claim‑processing rules)
Avila‑Santoyo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 713 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (applies Henderson to hold analogous timing rule nonjurisdictional)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from claim‑processing rules)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (Congress must clearly state if a limitation is jurisdictional)
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (AIT scanners analyzed under administrative‑search doctrine)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (factors for reasonableness of suspicionless seizures)
Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (reasonableness of suspicionless searches tied to special governmental needs)