Ramsingh v. Transp. Sec. Admin.

• Decision Date: 15 July 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1170
• Citation: 40 F.4th 625
• Parties: Rohan RAMSINGH, Petitioner v. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

40 F.4th 625

Rohan RAMSINGH, Petitioner

v.TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

No. 21-1170

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued February 2, 2022

Decided July 15, 2022

Jonathan Corbett argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.

Kyle T. Edwards, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, and Sharon Swingle, Attorney.

Before: Rogers, Millett, and Katsas, Circuit Judges.

Millett, Circuit Judge:

Shortly before Thanksgiving 2019, Rohan Ramsingh, an Army veteran, arrived at the Tampa International Airport to pick up two of his children who were visiting for the holiday. After a swab of Ramsingh's hands tested positive for traces of explosive material, screening personnel from the Transportation Security Administration attempted to perform a full-body pat-down. Citing medical reasons, Ramsingh repeatedly refused to be patted down and was subsequently escorted away from the checkpoint by law enforcement.

The agency assessed Ramsingh a civil penalty for "interfer[ing] with * * * screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties[.]" 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109.

Ramsingh petitioned this court to overturn the penalty on the ground that his refusal to submit to a pat-down, particularly in light of his medical justifications, did not constitute interference under the regulation. Because, on the record in this case, the agency lawfully applied its interference regulation to Ramsingh's conduct, we deny the petition for review.

I

A

Congress has charged the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") with "safeguard[ing] this country's civil aviation security and safety." Corbett v. TSA , 19 F.4th 478, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The agency has "broad authority" to "identify ‘threats to transportation’ and take the appropriate steps to respond to those threats." Id. at 480, 486 (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2), (3) ).

As relevant here, Congress directed the TSA to "provide for the screening of all passengers and property * * * that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft[.]" 49 U.S.C. § 44901(a). To that end, TSA promulgated a regulation stating that "[n]o individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property[.]" 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107(a). The "sterile area" is the "portion of an airport * * * that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA[.]" Id. § 1540.5. Individuals and their property are inspected for, among other things, "weapons, explosives, and incendiaries." Id.

TSA regulations specify that "[n]o person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties[.]" 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109. The aim of Section 1540.109 is to "prohibit[ ] interference that might distract or inhibit a screener from effectively performing his or her duties." Civil Aviation Security Rules, 67 Fed. Reg. 8,340, 8,344 (Feb. 22, 2002). TSA explained that "[t]his rule is necessary to emphasize the importance to safety and security of protecting screeners from undue distractions or attempts to intimidate." Id. "[A]busive, distracting behavior, and attempts to prevent screeners from performing required screening, are subject to civil penalties[.]" Id.¹

B

To ensure that all individuals are fully screened before gaining access to the boarding area, TSA relies on a combination of walk-through metal detectors, Advanced Imaging Technology ("AIT") machines, explosive trace detection tests, and pat-downs. AIT machines can screen for both metallic and non-metallic threats, addressing "a critical weakness in aviation security" that existed when only metal detectors were used. Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology, 81 Fed. Reg. 11,364, 11,365 (March 3, 2016). While AIT machines have become standard in airports across the United States, "[p]assengers generally may decline AIT screening and opt instead for a pat-down." Id.

Other circumstances in which a passenger may be required to undergo a pat-down include "if the screening technology alarms, as part of unpredictable security measures, [or] for enhanced screening[.]" Security Screening , TSA, https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening (last accessed July 7, 2022) ("Pat-Down Screening" drop-down box). A pat-down "may include inspection of the head, neck, arms, torso, legs, and feet[,]" as well as "sensitive areas such as breasts, groin, and the buttocks." Id.

TSA provides limited screening accommodations for those with disabilities and medical conditions, but the agency emphasizes that persons with such conditions must also "undergo screening at the checkpoint." Disabilities and Medical Conditions , TSA, https://www.tsa.gov/travel/special-procedures (last accessed July 7, 2022).

TSA requires that once an individual has begun the screening process, he or she must complete it. See Appendix ("A.") 63–64, 86, 88, 205–206, 290, 296; see also 81 Fed. Reg. at 11,385. Individuals are not allowed to leave partway through. After all, permitting an individual "to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world." United States v. Aukai , 497 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see A. 296. Letting individuals self-select out of the process once faced with additional screening, in particular, "would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’ on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found[,]" and would supply terrorists with a "low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks." Aukai , 497 F.3d at 960–961 (footnote omitted).

II

A

On November 23, 2019, Ramsingh arrived at the Tampa International Airport, along with his girlfriend and child, to pick up Ramsingh's other two minor children who were arriving unaccompanied on a flight from Houston. After receiving gate passes from the airline, they entered the security checkpoint. When Ramsingh attempted to proceed through the walk-through metal detector, Transportation Security Officer Julio Melendez Ortiz instructed him to go through the AIT machine instead. Ramsingh stated that, due to a shoulder injury incurred during military service, he could not lift both arms above his head, as required by the AIT machine. Officer Melendez Ortiz then permitted Ramsingh to use the walk-through metal detector.

TSA procedures require that a traveler who declines AIT screening undergo an explosive trace detection test, so Officer Melendez Ortiz swabbed Ramsingh's hands. See A. 83 (TSA officer stating in an affidavit that "the passenger opted out of the AIT screening," so "his hands were [explosive trace detection tested] pursuant to policy"); A. 204 ("TSA Standard Operating Procedures * * * required that [Ramsingh] receive an Explosive Trace Detection * * * test on his hands."). The test came back positive for possible components of explosives, which prompted Officer Melendez Ortiz to notify his supervisor.

Supervisory Transportation Security Officer Tiffany Pagan informed Ramsingh that TSA would need to conduct a full-body pat-down and further screening of his property to clear the positive explosives alarm. Ramsingh objected to the pat-down, explaining that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

and Military Sexual Trauma, conditions which would be triggered by a full-body pat-down. Officer Pagan then asked one of her male colleagues, Supervisory Transportation Security Officer Robert McClelland, to assist. While acknowledging Ramsingh's medical concerns, Officer McClelland insisted that there was "no alternative" to a pat-down for resolving an explosive trace detection alarm. A. 83. Ramsingh continued to refuse. Officer McClelland next offered to conduct the pat-down in a private or less crowded area of the checkpoint, but Ramsingh declined.

At some point, Ramsingh indicated that he did not wish to continue with the screening process, stating "I can just leave" and "you can't detain me." A. 83. Officer McClelland acknowledged that TSA could not detain him but advised Ramsingh that if he did not comply with required screening procedures, TSA would have to call law enforcement to the checkpoint. Ramsingh replied "fine, call them." A. 83. The Transportation Security Manager and another officer subsequently arrived at the checkpoint, but they too were unable to convince Ramsingh to submit to a full-body pat-down.

Approximately twenty minutes after the encounter between Ramsingh and TSA personnel began, law enforcement officers arrived and peaceably escorted Ramsingh away from the checkpoint. In the meantime, Ramsingh's girlfriend had picked the arriving children up from their flight.

B

TSA does not dispute the legitimacy of Ramsingh's medical conditions and acknowledges that Ramsingh communicated those medical conditions to the TSA officers on the scene. Nevertheless, in May 2020, TSA charged Ramsingh with violating 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 ’s prohibition on interfering with security personnel and sought a civil penalty of $2,050.

Ramsingh requested a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The ALJ upheld the civil penalty, finding that Ramsingh "refused to allow a pat-down search to complete screening," A. 250, and that "TSA's interpretation of its regulations—that once an individual begins the screening process at the airport, a refusal to complete the screening process constitutes ‘interference’ with the screener's performance of his/her screening duties"—was "reasonable[,]" A. 256–257.

The ALJ also ruled that Ramsingh's medical conditions did not excuse his noncompliance. The ALJ explained that the security interests served by uniformly...