logo
TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

Yahoo14-03-2025

The largest federal government employee union is alleging in a new lawsuit that the Trump administration violated its First Amendment rights and the "hallowed" sanctity of contracts by canceling a collective bargaining agreement covering Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport security screeners.
"This attack on our members is not just an attack on AFGE or transportation security officers. It's an assault on the rights of every American worker," said Everett Kelly, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), in an emailed statement announcing the lawsuit.
AFGE, alongside two unions representing airport workers and flight attendants, is suing the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, after Noem's unilateral decision last week to tear up what was supposed to be a seven-year union contract with TSA screeners.
DHS justified that action by saying the contract had allowed hundreds of TSA employees to collect government paychecks to do full-time union work. The department accused the union of failing to represent the interests of airport screeners and the flying public.
In its lawsuit, AFGE counters that DHS's decision to cancel the collective bargaining agreement is retaliation for the union's many other legal challenges against the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency–inspired activities.
According to Just Security's litigation tracker, AFGE is a lead plaintiff in at least four lawsuits challenging the administration's efforts to fire federal workers, remove civil servant protections, and centralize access to government records systems.
By retaliating against AFGE for filing these lawsuits, the union alleges, DHS has violated its First Amendment right to petition to the government. It also alleges that DHS has violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act by unilaterally and arbitrarily ripping up a binding union contract.
There are plenty of reasons to eliminate the TSA, given the ineffectiveness of its security screenings, the frequency with which it violates passengers' rights and physical dignity, and the inherent conflict of interest created by an airport security regulator providing airport security services.
Nevertheless, TSA agents likely have a strong legal claim that the Trump administration can't just unilaterally cancel a union contract.
AFGE will likely have an easier time asserting the rights of TSA screeners against their employer than the flying public has had trying to assert their rights in court against TSA screeners.
Over the years, passengers have filed multiple lawsuits against TSA agents for violating their rights.
That includes Dustin Dyer, who sued the government and individual TSA agents for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights after they prevented him from filming his own security pat-down and then searched his cellphone.
An appellate court dismissed Dyer's case in late 2022, deciding that TSA agents have qualified immunity from lawsuits challenging their on-the-job actions.
Only since 2023 have federal appellate courts issued a string of opinions finding that TSA screeners are law enforcement officials and can, in fact, be sued in federal civil court.
While the union representing TSA agents asserts its rights in court, it might want to consider the rights of everyday air travelers who have a harder time doing the same.
The post TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'
A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

A judge's dismissal of Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is a win for Blake Lively, but it's not 'game over'

Legal experts say Blake Lively has scored a key legal win against Justin Baldoni. A New York judge dismissed Baldoni's defamation case against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and the NYT. Still, one expert told BI it's not "game over" for Baldoni since "the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." Blake Lively just scored a major win in her ongoing legal battle with "It Ends With Us" director-costar Justin Baldoni, but the court fight isn't over yet. Legal experts told Business Insider the dismissal of Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit is an important win for Lively and her team, especially in a case where reputation is more at stake than money. "Even though it was a New York judge, the judge applied California law, and that's important because California is one of the most First Amendment-friendly states in the country," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and cofounder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told BI. Although the case was filed in New York, California laws apply because the events in question took place in the state. "The fact that the vast majority of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they can't be refiled, is a huge setback for Baldoni," Rahmani added. On Monday, a New York judge dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times. Baldoni argued that the parties conspired to destroy his career with false allegations after Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. In her complaint, Lively said that Baldoni and the producers of "It Ends With Us" orchestrated a smear campaign against her after she raised concerns about on-set conditions during the film's production. Baldoni has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. "As we have said from day one, this '$400 million' lawsuit was a sham, and the Court saw right through it," said the spokesperson, who added that Lively plans to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages from Baldoni and his associates. US District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively's sexual harassment allegations in her lawsuit are legally protected speech. The judge also ruled Baldoni's allegations that Lively engaged in an extortion campaign to seize creative control of "It Ends With Us" from Baldoni did not qualify as civil extortion under California law. Liman says Baldoni can refile an amended suit against Lively regarding his contract breach and interference allegations. Baldoni has until June 23 to file that amended complaint. Baldoni's camp would not confirm to BI whether they would refile, but a statement from his attorney, Bryan Freedman, suggested that the director has plans to do just that. "Ms. Lively and her team's predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling. While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations," Freedman said. Freedman added, "Most importantly, Ms. Lively's own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking." Camron Dowlatshahi of MSD Lawyers, who specializes in sexual harassment cases, told BI that the judge's dismissal is still a major victory for Lively at a very early stage of the case. "Baldoni can amend his complaint to properly allege a cause of action for defamation," said Dowlatshahi. "His amended complaint will likely face another motion to dismiss and cannot manufacture facts, so it remains to be seen whether Baldoni can get to the discovery stage of his case." Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni is still pending and could proceed to trial. Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist and partner at Withers, told BI there may be some hope left for Baldoni if he targets Lively's statements made outside her complaint, which may be less protected. "Libel litigation can be akin to spinning the roulette wheel or sitting down to a game of chance," said Melville-Brown. "So while Baldoni may have lost in this latest hand, it doesn't mean all bets are off. It's not necessarily game over because the judge has granted him permission to amend his claim." "That said, and I'm not a gambler myself. If he didn't play his strongest cards at the outset, it's not easy to see that he's going to come up with a winning hand second time around," Melville-Brown added. Read the original article on Business Insider

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says

USA Today

time33 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store