Roberts v. Napolitano, 798 F. Supp. 2d 7

TSA created post-9/11 to prevent terrorism in transportation networks and expend resources on security mission.
Screening SOP revised on Sept. 17, 2010 to mandate AIT use and revised pat-down procedures.
TSA uses two AIT systems: backscatter X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners, under the Screening Checkpoint SOP.
Plaintiffs (Roberts and Poe) allege TSA screening violates the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable-searches standard.
Defendants move to dismiss; argue the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because review lies with courts of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110.
The court finds the motion to dismiss must be granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Screening Checkpoint SOP is an order reviewable under §46110	Roberts argues the SOP is an order reviewable in district court	Napolitano/Pistole contend §46110 grants exclusive appellate review	Yes; the SOP is an order subject to §46110
Whether the Fourth Amendment claim is inseparably intertwined with review of the SOP	Claim challenges TSA procedures; intertwined with order review	Intertwinement bars district-court review	Yes; claim is inseparably intertwined with SOP review
Whether due process requires allowing district-court review despite §46110 bar	§46110 review denies meaningful judicial review	No due process violation; appellate review suffices	No due process violation; review via §46110 adequate

Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) (inescapably intertwined with review of order; constitutional challenges to airport security measures)
Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finality and reviewability under §46110)
Beins v. United States, 695 F.2d 598 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (discussion of intertwinement doctrine and review)
Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (intertwinement doctrine and broad constitutional challenges to agency action)