"Can a TSA agent who assaults a traveler be held liable for the assault?" That answer has been "yes" for a long time.
But rather:
"Can the TSA itself be held liable when an agent under its control commits an assault?"
The doctrine of sovereign immunity says "no". However, congress has created exceptions to sovereign immunity, and the ruling is that the TSA is included in those exceptions.
That clearly says TSA staff, not the TSA itself. Is that summary of the argument wrong?
Instead, the TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them.
So TSA is claiming immunity for both staff and the agency. I didn't read the actual judgement, but I'm guessing the grandparent comment has that covered.
>Whether Leuthauser can state a claim against TSO Serrano under Bivens is not at issue in this appeal
"Leuthauser" is the plaintiff, "TSO" stands for "Transportation Security Officer"
[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/2...
How in the world could that sentence EVER be justified? Maybe there's justification for protection from assault due to physical altercations while attempting to restrain someone. There is NEVER reasoning for rape. FULL FUCKING STOP. Seriously, WTF is wrong with people for a) suggesting it in the first place, and b) ratifying it into accepted policy
I don't know the details of this particular case that would lead to claims of rape. But, I do know that certain types of search on someone's person can be... invasive.... especially if they're suspected of smuggling. I can certainly see how that kind of search becomes a rape claim.
It's literally the textbook definition of rape to search someone like that with the threat of physical harm. The legal difference is the context and intent.
There is a gray area here people don't want to talk about, but TFA is lying by omission if this is the kind of case at hand.
We live in a world where x-ray machines are ubiquitous. There's zero reason we need to have government-committed legalized rape at the airport, regardless of context or intent.
Then there's cases of legitimate foreign bodies anyways, e.g. a tampon full of fentanyl or something comparable. The X ray won't help there.
Criminals aren't always the most reasonable people. Saying "pretty please" is a waste of time.
I can't imagine when it would ever be necessary for a random TSA thug to go elbow deep in someone to rummage around for a balloon filled with drugs that could rupture and kill them.
(I am not a lawyer, don't rely on random people on the internet for legal advice, especially when the word 'analogy' is involved, etc.).
no.
if you are operating with guidelines like allowing protection against an employee from being convicted of rape, then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
The immunity under discussion is about civil liability.
> ... then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
> The three judges found unanimously that the Federal Tort Clams [Claims?] Act (FTCA) allows lawsuits against the TSA for damages caused by checkpoint staff who assault travelers.
IANAL I don't think this is the case.
> FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment.
There are exceptions but a blanket "Yes" is too simple it seems like. I can't find any analyses that contradict this or cases where individual agents are sued rather than the agency (outside of bivens cases which are about constitutional violations and supersede federal law).
https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity...