Comment by rayiner
1 day ago
Saying that there is “no legal requirement to show an ID” is truthy but misleading. Federal law gives the TSA authority over “screening” passengers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901 (“The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.”).
That means the TSA can do whatever it can get away with labeling “screening.” It doesn’t matter that Congress didn’t specifically require showing IDs. That’s just one possible way of doing “screening.” Under the statute, the TSA is not required to do screening any particular way.
From TFA:
> The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which is set law, provides a “complete defense” against any penalty for failing to respond to any collection of information by a Federal agency that hasn’t been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), isn’t accompanied by a valid PRA notice, or doesn’t display a valid OMB Control Number.
As the article works through, as a Federal Agency the TSA cannot just label stuff "screening" and demand money, or at least, they can't do so and then make you pay it.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/20/2025-20...
Well apparently Congress passed a law that said TSA could just demand money as long as they published a notice in the federal register.
as the PRA outlines (and the article goes through), publishing notice to the Federal Register does not suffice to get around the PRA, it is just a step in the process.
It is just "notice" of their intention to do it. They still have to do the other pieces, including getting their OMB control number.
Of course, as the article points out, all of this is pretty moot, if they're going to get the police to drag you away and not let you fly, irrespective of the position in law.
Would declining to let you through security actually be a "penalty" (legally speaking), though? There are a ton of things you need to show papers for in the US; I can't imagine that all of them were pre-approved by the OMB.
You seem to be under the impression that the word "screening" means TSA can do whatever it wants. When in fact, if you click on the link under the word "Screening" in the own link you posted, there is a definition provided.
> (4) Screening defined .— In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security.
You should consider reading what you posted.
The site is confusing since, if you click the link, you don't see the context. But that definition is for cargo screening only.
If you scroll down and look at it in context, that definition is under section (g): "Air Cargo on Passenger Aircraft".
And of course passengers aren't cargo.
>You seem to be under the impression that the word "screening" means TSA can do whatever it wants.
I assure you TSA thinks it can do whatever it wants. I say this as a white male and have certainly heard even worse stories that my own of egregious violations from people with other demographics.
And reading further...The Administrator may approve additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security and to assist in meeting the requirements of this subsection.
You clipped the first part while the definition was a lot longer including the above TSA can do anything they want escape hatch. Have a good day sir.
Yes, I did not want to copy paste the entire site. You did not post the full definition either and clipped a part of it as well.
> You clipped the first part while the definition was a lot longer including the above TSA can do anything they want escape hatch. Have a good day sir.
Your interpretation that TSA can "do anything they want to" just because the administrator can approve additional methods is grossly incorrect.
Have a good one.
> doesn't matter that Congress didn't specifically require...
Actually it does matter. Chevron deference is gone. If Congress didn't specifically approve this method, it's not legal
Chevron just said that courts must defer to any reasonable interpretation of the statute by the agency. Getting rid of that just means that courts get to decide what words like “screening” mean. It doesn’t mean Congress needs to explicitly approve every method.
Chevron doesn’t change anything here. Checking IDs easily falls within the scope of the word “screening,” no matter who is deciding the meaning of that term.
To be fair, that's not exactly what Loper Bright says. It holds that the courts should read the statute independently and not assume that Agency rules or procedures are prima facie controlling where the statute is ambiguous.
That's not what the end of Chevron deference means. It means that if Congress didn't specifically approve this method, a court may find it illegal much more easily than was previously the case. The deference in "Chevron deference" was from the courts towards administrative agencies.
How can it be legally considered screening if you can pay $45 to bypass it entirely?
It doesn’t bypass the screening. It’s one screening method that’s cheaper to implement because the work is done by the Real ID verification, and another screening method that costs money to do different checks.
You have the right to travel without ID in the U.S. The TSA may demand it, and may tell you it's legally required, but that doesn't make that true.
"In fact, the TSA does not require, and the law does not authorize the TSA to require, that would-be travelers show any identity documents. According to longstanding practice, people who do not show any identity documents travel by air every day – typically after being required to complete and sign the current version of TSA Form 415 and answer questions about what information is contained in the file about them obtained by the TSA from data broker Accurint…."
https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/05/19/tsa-tries-again-to-im...
https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/03/18/buses-trains-and-us-d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...