Ruskai v. Pistole , 775 F.3d 61 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-1392
    MARY BETH RUSKAI,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    JOHN S. PISTOLE, Administrator,
    Transportation Security Administration,
    Respondent.
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
    THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    Before
    Lynch, Chief Judge,
    Lipez and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
    Inga S. Bernstein, with whom Monica R. Shah, Naomi R.
    Shatz, and Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP were on brief, for
    petitioner.
    Sydney Foster, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil
    Division, with whom Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
    Mark B. Stern, and Sharon Swingle were on brief, for respondent.
    December 23, 2014
    KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. As someone with a metallic joint
    replacement, Mary Beth Ruskai cannot pass through some security
    checkpoints in U.S. airports under current Transportation Security
    Administration ("TSA") security protocols without submitting to a
    standard pat-down that includes security officials touching areas
    around her groin and breasts to look for concealed metallic and
    nonmetallic weapons.        Having unsuccessfully petitioned TSA to
    change its protocols, she asks this court to find that they violate
    the Fourth Amendment and federal disability discrimination law, and
    to set them aside.      For the reasons that follow, we cannot so find.
    I.   Background
    TSA is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    ("DHS").   6 U.S.C. § 203(2). Congress created TSA in response to
    the events of September 11, 2001, "and charged it with ensuring
    civil aviation security, including the screening of all passengers
    and   property   that    move    through    U.S.   airports."   Redfern   v.
    Napolitano, 
    727 F.3d 77
    , 80 (1st Cir. 2013); see also 49 U.S.C.
    § 114(d); Field v. Napolitano, 
    663 F.3d 505
    , 508 (1st Cir. 2011).
    One of TSA's principal jobs is to keep passengers from boarding a
    plane with explosives, weapons, or other destructive substances
    (hereafter, "weapons").         49 U.S.C. § 44901.
    There are roughly 500 commercial airports in the United
    States that each serve over 2,500 passengers per year, with most
    larger airports having multiple terminals and, often, multiple
    -2-
    screening lines within terminals. See Fed. Aviation Admin., Report
    to Congress: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
    2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 7 ,           a t        4 ,        a v a i l a b l e               a t
    http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/histo
    rical/media/2013/npias2013Narrative.pdf.                With    more     than       600
    million passengers of all sorts carrying myriad items flying into
    and out of these airports each year, see Passengers, Bureau of
    T   r    a   n   s   p   .           S     t   a    t   i   s   t    i    c     s     ,
    http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1, TSA's job
    is a challenging and ever-evolving task.
    Planes blown out of the sky in Russia and attempted
    bombings on U.S. airliners in recent years have warned TSA that its
    screening procedures must be capable of detecting both metallic and
    nonmetallic weapons.         See 78 Fed. Reg. 18,287 - 18,291 (March 26,
    2013).       As anyone who frequently flies knows, TSA's primary
    strategy for coping with this challenge has been to develop and use
    technology: specifically, walk-through Advanced Imaging Technology
    scanners     ("AIT   scanners")     that   can     detect   both    metallic        and
    nonmetallic weapons on clothed passengers.              Implementation of this
    strategy remains a work in progress.               In the fall of 2010, TSA
    revised one of its Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs"), called
    the Screening Checkpoint SOP, to include additional procedures
    aimed at detecting nonmetallic weapons. The new SOP authorized the
    use of two types of AIT scanners as the primary methods of
    -3-
    screening at U.S. airports1, and adopted as a secondary screen a
    new   "standard     pat-down,"       which       is    an   enhanced      form     of    the
    previously used pat-down.            
    Redfern, 727 F.3d at 80
    .              The primary
    protocol requires anyone wanting to fly to go through an AIT
    scanner or to submit to the new standard pat-down.                        
    Id. The rollout
       of    the     new      technology     as    the    primary
    screening method encountered significant resistance.                              The AIT
    scanners were viewed by many as generating, in effect, a nude
    picture of each passenger, many of whom were not inclined to pose
    for such pictures as a price of flying.                 See, e.g., 
    id. TSA worked
    to develop privacy software (known as Automated Target Recognition,
    or "ATR") for the AIT scanners, such that no screening agent had to
    personally examine AIT images for weapons.                  Congress weighed in as
    well, passing the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L.
    No. 112-95, § 826, 126 Stat. 11, 132, requiring TSA to ensure that
    all passenger-screening AIT scanners employed ATR by June 2012
    (later      extended    to   May    2013).         
    Redfern, 727 F.3d at 81
    .
    TSA has continued to expand its use of AIT scanners. Its
    efforts were set back when the manufacturer of one of the two types
    of    AIT    scanners    TSA   had    initially         deployed,      the      so-called
    backscatter scanner, was evidently unable to develop adequate ATR
    1
    TSA had begun using some AIT scanners as secondary
    screening tools for selected passengers at some airports in 2007.
    
    Redfern, 727 F.3d at 80
    .
    -4-
    capability, so backscatter scanners have been removed from airport
    operation.    
    Id. Nevertheless, the
    government asserts in its brief
    that TSA "has deployed more than 740 AIT machines at almost 160
    airports and anticipates deploying approximately 80 additional
    machines by 2015."      Even so, there remain many screening points
    that yet lack AIT scanners, or where they are not in use full-time.
    Ruskai's challenge in this case concerns TSA's protocol for those
    checkpoints.
    The primary screening device at checkpoints lacking AIT
    scanners is the walk-through metal detector ("WTMD").         In other
    words, at those checkpoints, TSA effectively does not screen most
    passengers' bodies for nonmetallic weapons, and will not do so
    until AIT scanners are installed.       Suffice it to say, TSA credibly
    claims to be intent on reducing the number of such checkpoints.
    There are several groups of passengers for whom TSA
    relies on screening techniques other than (or in addition to) the
    WTMD and AIT scanners, including people who cannot medically go
    through an AIT scanner or WTMD, who alarm either primary screening
    machine, or who are randomly selected for additional screening.
    Many of those people are subject to the standard pat-down, which
    Ruskai describes as involving a TSA agent touching around her
    breasts, feeling inside her waistband, and running a hand up the
    inside of each thigh until reaching the groin.       Others (including
    children, the elderly, individuals selected for random additional
    -5-
    screening, and those screened by opposite-gender TSA personnel)
    receive a modified, more limited, version of the standard pat-down.
    Additionally,   TSA   has    opted   to   impose   more   limited
    screening burdens on passengers whom it confirms are part of TSA's
    PreCheck program.    As described in the briefing, PreCheck offers
    passenger members "expedited screening in designated lanes if they
    have been cleared for such screening based on certain background
    checks conducted prior to their arrival at the airport[,]" and a
    more limited pat-down in the event that the passenger alarms a
    WTMD.
    Ruskai, whose job requires her to fly frequently, has had
    three joints replaced, and at least one of her replacement joints
    is metal.   As such, she triggers an alert when she walks through a
    WTMD.   If, while traveling, she proceeds through a PreCheck
    screening lane, Ruskai, who is a PreCheck member, is supposed to
    receive the more limited pat-down following her unsuccessful pass
    through the WTMD.      As discussed at greater length below, the
    government now also claims that Ruskai may receive the more limited
    pat-down, even in non-PreCheck lanes, if a boarding pass scanner
    confirms her PreCheck status.      (Ruskai disputes how limited these
    "limited" pat-downs really are.)          But if the checkpoint has no
    PreCheck lane, or cannot verify Ruskai's PreCheck status, Ruskai is
    subject to the standard pat-down.        She objects to this procedure,
    finding it "stressful," "invasive," and "extremely unpleasant."
    -6-
    While many people may have less sensitivity to the indignities of
    the search, certainly Ruskai is not unusual in finding it invasive
    and disturbing, as has been made very clear to TSA at, among other
    things, congressional hearings.
    Ruskai's   principal    argument   is,   simply   stated,    as
    follows:   since the only reason she requires a follow-up search is
    that she trips the WTMD, TSA should search her only for metal, and
    it should conduct such a metal-only search using a hand-held metal
    detector "wand" ("HHMD"), supplemented by inspection of her medical
    documentation of the implant and a pat-down of only the area to
    which the HHMD alerts.      TSA's refusal to restrict its search in
    this manner, she claims, constitutes an unreasonable search under
    the   Fourth   Amendment,    and   violates    section   504    of     the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
    II. Jurisdiction and Timeliness
    We begin by confirming that we have jurisdiction to
    consider Ruskai's petition for review.        Under 49 U.S.C. § 46110,
    with certain exceptions,
    a person disclosing a substantial interest in
    an   order   issued  by   the   Secretary   of
    Transportation (or the Under Secretary of
    Transportation for Security with respect to
    [certain] security duties and powers . . .) in
    whole or in part under [Part A of subtitle VII
    of Title 49 of the U.S. Code] may apply for
    review of the order by filing a petition for
    review . . . in the court of appeals of the
    United States for the circuit in which the
    person resides . . . .
    -7-
    Neither party disputes that TSA's security protocol and
    refusal to grant Ruskai's requested accommodation constitute a
    final order reviewable by this court.         We agree.    See Blitz v.
    Napolitano, 
    700 F.3d 733
    , 739-40 (4th Cir. 2012). Cf. Gilmore v.
    Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 1125
    , 1133 (9th Cir. 2006) (TSA security
    directive is a reviewable "order"); Aviators for Safe & Fairer
    Regulation, Inc. v. F.A.A., 
    221 F.3d 222
    , 225 (1st Cir. 2000)
    (noting that the term "order" is read "expansively" in section
    46110).
    A petition for review "must be filed not later than 60
    days after the order is issued[;]" late petitions are permitted
    "only if there are reasonable grounds for not filing by the 60th
    day." 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). The final TSA letter denying Ruskai's
    request was dated January 19, 2012, but postmarked February 3. She
    filed for review on April 2--more than 60 days after the letter was
    written, but less than 60 days after it was sent.          We asked the
    parties to brief whether Ruskai's petition was timely.       They agree
    that it was, and so do we.        See, e.g., Avia Dynamics, Inc. v.
    F.A.A., 
    641 F.3d 515
    , 519 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (concluding that
    "issuing"    means   making   a    decision     publicly    available);
    Americopters, LLC v. F.A.A., 
    441 F.3d 726
    , 733 & n.5 (9th Cir.
    2006).
    -8-
    III. The Record
    We turn next to the record, which for three reasons is
    somewhat unusual.
    First, although this petition calls for review of an
    agency order, the order here was the result of informal agency
    action, not an administrative hearing or public notice and comment.
    Starting in early 2011, Ruskai submitted a series of complaints to
    TSA about being repeatedly subjected to pat-downs. She found TSA's
    responses inadequate, and eventually filed a complaint with DHS's
    Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, claiming that the
    searches violated her Fourth Amendment rights and discriminated
    against her on account of her disability.                Nearly nine months
    later, DHS declined to open an investigation and directed any
    further      inquiries   to   TSA's   Office   of    Disability   Policy   and
    Outreach.      On January 19, 2012, a TSA "policy advisor" wrote to
    Ruskai, noting that TSA could not effectively investigate her
    claims at that late date, but nonetheless rejecting her request
    that   she    be   offered    modified   security     screening   procedures.
    Following that denial, Ruskai filed a petition for review with this
    court.    The parties have given the court an administrative record,
    which, it seems, was largely compiled by TSA based on its records
    at the time it rejected Ruskai's requests.
    Second, much of the record is sealed, with some portions
    unavailable even to Ruskai's counsel.               Most of that sealing is
    -9-
    because     TSA    exercised    its     authority      to    designate    certain
    information       Sensitive   Security      Information,     and   so   limit   its
    dissemination.       See 49 C.F.R. pts. 15 and 1520.
    Third, the underlying facts are not static, as TSA
    continues to pursue its goal of expanding its use of AIT scanners
    and its PreCheck program.
    As a result of these factors, both parties have sought to
    supplement the record before this court.
    A.   Ruskai's Motion to Supplement the Record
    Before oral argument, Ruskai moved to supplement the
    administrative record by adding an affidavit about her screening
    experiences.        Ruskai argues we should consider her statement
    because her side of the story is not well reflected in the current
    record     only    because    TSA   failed     to   investigate     her   initial
    complaints. Cf. Cousins v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Transp., 
    880 F.2d 603
    , 610 (1st Cir. 1989) (noting that APA review is normally
    limited to the administrative record, but petitioners are not
    prejudiced as they may contribute to the administrative record
    during the agency proceedings).             The government declined to take a
    position    on     her   request,     and    has    waived   any   objection     by
    affirmatively relying without objection on Ruskai's affidavit;
    accordingly, we grant the motion.             Cf. WildWest Inst. v. Bull, 
    547 F.3d 1162
    , 1176 (9th Cir. 2008) (maintaining that a court may
    "consider extra-record materials (1) when necessary to determine
    -10-
    whether the agency considered all relevant factors in making its
    decision; (2) when the agency has relied on extra-record materials;
    (3) when necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject
    matter; or (4) when the agency has acted in bad faith"). Regarding
    Ruskai's brief, however, we note that simply because information is
    available   on    the   internet,     and    cited   in   a    brief,     does    not
    automatically     render       it   either    evidence        or   part    of     the
    administrative record.
    B.   The Government's Rule 28(j) Letter
    After oral argument, the government filed a citation of
    supplemental authority under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
    28(j),   informing      us   that   TSA   recently   expanded      the    PreCheck
    program. Essentially, the government claims that if a TSA official
    confirms (using technology used to scan boarding passes) that a
    passenger qualifies for TSA PreCheck for a given flight, they can
    receive PreCheck security treatment even in normal screening lanes.
    Ruskai objects both to the use of Rule 28(j) to introduce this new
    evidence    and   to     the    government's     characterization          of     the
    information.
    Rule 28(j) provides that "[i]f pertinent and significant
    authorities come to a party's attention . . . after oral argument
    but before decision . . . [the] party may promptly advise the
    circuit clerk by letter . . . setting forth the citations."                      Fed.
    R. App. P. 28(j).       Generally, while 28(j) is not strictly limited
    -11-
    to offering authorities that did not exist at the time of briefing
    or oral argument, it should not be used to introduce new arguments
    or new evidence.    United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada, 
    558 F.3d 29
    ,
    38 n.4 (1st Cir. 2009); 16AA Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller
    et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3974.6 (4th
    ed.).
    We have sometimes acknowledged such factual submissions,
    however, at least where they raise a question of mootness.     See,
    e.g., 
    Redfern, 727 F.3d at 83
    (where both parties agreed in
    substance to the facts in the government's Rule 28(j) letter,
    seeing "no difficulty" in taking judicial notice of those facts and
    finding the case moot); United States v. Brown, 
    631 F.3d 573
    , 580
    (1st Cir. 2011) (considering mootness after the government informed
    the court by Rule 28(j) letter that defendant was out on supervised
    release).    Cf. Pleasures of San Patricio, Inc. v. Mendez-Torres,
    
    596 F.3d 1
    , 5 (1st Cir. 2010) (noting that the parties had not
    filed a Rule 28(j) letter on the status of related litigation, and
    so the court could not conclusively rule that the case before it
    was moot).    Although the parties do not address mootness, we are
    obliged to consider the issue sua sponte.     See Overseas Military
    Sales Corp., Ltd. v. Giralt-Armada, 
    503 F.3d 12
    , 16 (1st Cir.
    2007).   Insofar as Ruskai seeks to enjoin TSA's SOP as applied to
    her, any change in the protocol could materially impact her
    entitlement to relief.    The new SOP does not, however, moot the
    -12-
    entire dispute, as it is unclear how many airports and individual
    checkpoints are affected by the revised policy.
    In   any   event,    the      government   has    previously     and
    consistently maintained that Ruskai's is a "shrinking problem,"
    because TSA is trying both to expand the PreCheck program and to
    increase the number of passengers screened through AIT scanners,
    subject to resource and process constraints.            This new information
    is merely consistent with those prior representations.                     Also,
    Ruskai does not challenge the bare fact that PreCheck is being
    expanded.    We therefore accept the government's representation,
    though it itself is of little relevance to our review because the
    government has offered few details on implementation.
    C.    Ruskai's Second Motion to Supplement
    Ruskai more recently filed a second motion to supplement
    the   record.     In   this     second    motion,    she    includes   her   own
    supplemental     affidavit    and   the    affidavit   of    an   observer   who
    witnessed her proceed through security.             She asserts that, on six
    trips that she took since January 2014 (when oral argument was held
    in this case), she was in fact able to access PreCheck entry, but
    on four of those occasions (when AIT scanners were unavailable) she
    was still subjected to a pat-down that, she claims, was more
    invasive than previous PreCheck limited pat-downs she had received,
    and which made her "very uncomfortable."               Accordingly, she now
    claims, "there is little distinction" between PreCheck limited pat-
    -13-
    downs and standard pat-downs.             The government takes no position on
    this motion.         We allow its filing, again while recognizing its
    limited relevance because the agency decision on review in this
    case includes no challenge by Ruskai to the limited pat-down used
    under the PreCheck program.
    IV.    Standard of Review
    In    assessing       Ruskai's challenge to TSA's security
    procedures, our review is limited to objections she raised before
    the agency, unless she can show "a reasonable ground for not making
    the objection" to TSA first. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(d). TSA's findings
    of fact are conclusive "if supported by substantial evidence." 
    Id. § 46110(c).
         Because section 46110 does not specify a standard of
    review   for      non-factual       determinations,            the    Administrative
    Procedures     Act    ("APA")     fills    that    gap,    such      that    we   review
    questions of law de novo and set aside TSA's decision if it is
    "arbitrary and capricious."               5 U.S.C. § 706(1).                Under that
    standard, we assess whether the "agency has examined the pertinent
    evidence,    considered     the    relevant       factors,      and   articulated        a
    satisfactory     explanation       for    its    action    including        a   rational
    connection between the facts found and the choice made." Penobscot
    Air Servs., Ltd. v. F.A.A., 
    164 F.3d 713
    , 719 (1st Cir. 1999)
    (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).                          We also set
    aside an agency decision if it is "contrary to constitutional
    right,   power,       privilege    or     immunity"       or   "otherwise         not   in
    -14-
    accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1), (2). Ruskai's arguments
    to us predominantly invoke these latter tests.           She asserts that
    the Screening Checkpoint SOP accords with neither the Fourth
    Amendment nor the Rehabilitation Act.
    V.    Analysis
    A.   Fourth Amendment
    The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the
    people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
    and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." U.S. Const.
    amend. IV.    In most cases, reasonableness "requires a showing of
    probable cause," but that standard "is peculiarly related to
    criminal investigations and may be unsuited to determining the
    reasonableness of administrative searches where the Government
    seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions."              Bd. of
    Educ. v. Earls, 
    536 U.S. 822
    , 828-29 (2002) (citations and internal
    quotation marks omitted); see also Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v.
    Acton, 
    515 U.S. 646
    , 652-53 (1995) (warrantless searches may be
    justified by needs beyond ordinary law enforcement); Nat'l Treas.
    Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 
    489 U.S. 656
    , 667-68 (1989).             The courts
    of appeals treat transit security screenings as "administrative" or
    "special    needs"   searches,    which   may   be   conducted,    at   least
    initially, without individualized suspicion, a warrant, or probable
    cause.     See, e.g., Von 
    Raab, 489 U.S. at 675
    n.3; Elec. Privacy
    -15-
    Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 
    653 F.3d 1
    , 10 (D.C.
    Cir. 2011); United States v. Aukai, 
    497 F.3d 955
    , 959-60 (9th Cir.
    2007) (en banc); Cassidy v. Chertoff, 
    471 F.3d 67
    , 74-75 (2d Cir.
    2006)(Sotomayor, J.); United States v. Hartwell, 
    436 F.3d 174
    , 177
    (3d Cir. 2006)(Alito, J.); see also United States v. De Los Santos
    Ferrer, 
    999 F.2d 7
    , 9 (1st Cir. 1993) (describing airport luggage
    searches as administrative searches).
    In a Fourth Amendment challenge to a search like that at
    issue here,2   we assess the search's reasonableness by balancing
    "the public interest in the [TSA's search] program against the
    privacy concerns implicated by the" search. See Von 
    Raab, 489 U.S. at 679
    .   Although different circuits have used variations on this
    test,3    we focus on "the gravity of the public concerns," "the
    2
    The parties do not cross swords over whether the screening
    process is one search or several, and generally seem to treat it as
    one. We proceed accordingly. Cf. 
    Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 177
    .
    3
    See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. 
    Ctr., 653 F.3d at 10
    (weighing "on the one hand, the degree to which [a search] intrudes
    upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which
    it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental
    interests"(quoting United States v. Knights, 
    534 U.S. 112
    , 118–19
    (2001)); MacWade v. Kelly, 
    460 F.3d 260
    , 268-69 (2d Cir.
    2006)(assessing property searches on the subway by weighing factors
    including "(1) the weight and immediacy of the government interest;
    (2) the nature of the privacy interest allegedly compromised by the
    search; (3) the character of the intrusion imposed by the search;
    and (4) the efficacy of the search in advancing the government
    interest" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted));
    
    Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 178-79
    (weighing "the gravity of the public
    concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure
    advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference
    with individual liberty" (citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted)); United States v. Marquez, 
    410 F.3d 612
    , 616 (9th Cir.
    -16-
    degree to which the [search] advances the public interest," and
    "the   severity   of   the    interference   with   individual    liberty."
    Illinois v. Lidster, 
    540 U.S. 419
    , 427 (2004); see 
    Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 178-79
    (applying these considerations in the airport
    checkpoint context).     While we will not require the government to
    adopt the least intrusive practicable alternative, there must be a
    fairly close fit between the weight of the government's interest in
    searching and the intrusiveness of the search--that is, the search
    must be a "reasonably effective means" for furthering the important
    government interest.         See 
    Earls, 536 U.S. at 837
    .         With these
    principles in mind, we turn to the relevant facts in this case.
    1.     Ruskai's Privacy Interest and the Intrusiveness of
    the Search
    Many of us have at some point found ourselves subject to
    a TSA pat-down--including the standard pat-down challenged here.
    Accepted as mildly annoying or uncomfortable for some, the standard
    pat-down is experienced as quite an intrusive indignity by many
    others, including petitioner Ruskai.         The procedure she describes
    being subjected to has many similarities to the Supreme Court's
    description of a pat-down for weapons in Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
    (1968), involving an officer "feel[ing] with sensitive fingers
    2005) amended 
    2005 WL 1661572
    (9th Cir. July 18, 2005) (deeming an
    airport search reasonable "if: (1) it is no more extensive or
    intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect
    weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that
    purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to
    fly" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    -17-
    every portion of the prisoner's body . . . [including his] arms and
    armpits,    waistline   and   back,   the   groin   and   area   about   the
    testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet."             
    Id. at 17
    n.13 (quoting L. L. Priar & T. F. Martin, Searching and
    Disarming Criminals, 45 J. Crim. L., Criminology & Police Sci. 481
    (1954)). The Court called the search "a serious intrusion upon the
    sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and
    arouse strong resentment" which "is not to be undertaken lightly."
    
    Id. at 17
    .       While Ruskai fairly relies on Terry to label the
    standard pat-down significantly intrusive, the comparison fits less
    closely than she claims.       Under TSA protocols, generally males
    search males and females search females; parts of the search are
    conducted with the back of the officer's hands rather than the
    palms or open fingers; privacy is offered; and the administrative
    nature of the search is much less accusatory, especially as members
    of the traveling public have become inured to the conduct of
    precautionary searches that rarely reveal any unlawful activity.
    Cf. 
    Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 180
    .        We nevertheless certainly agree
    that the search is objectively intrusive, although not everyone
    will necessarily find it as objectionable as Ruskai does.
    2.    The Nature of the Government's Interest
    On the other side of the balance, the government retains
    two key interests implicated by Ruskai's challenge to its current
    protocol.
    -18-
    First,    and   most   obviously,   TSA    asserts   a   critical
    interest in keeping both metallic and nonmetallic weapons off
    commercial flights. It observes that, in recent years, nonmetallic
    explosives have become one of the greatest threats to aviation
    security.     78 Fed. Reg. 18287-01, 18291 (March 26, 2013).                For
    example, on December 22, 2001, a terrorist attempted to detonate a
    nonmetallic bomb concealed in his shoe.           
    Id. In 2006,
    terrorists
    in the United Kingdom plotted to bring liquid explosives onto an
    aircraft where they would then construct and detonate a bomb while
    in flight.    
    Id. Three years
    later, an Al Qaeda plot to blow up an
    American aircraft using a nonmetallic explosive device hidden in a
    suicide bomber's underwear was foiled.           
    Id. Worldwide, attempted
    terrorist actions involving nonmetallic explosives have continued.
    
    Id. Second, TSA
    takes as its relevant starting point the
    undisputed fact that, when a person triggers an alert at a WTMD,
    TSA needs to search them in some manner, certainly to look for the
    metal that triggered the alarm. Given that a search is required in
    such situations, TSA suggests that it has an interest in using a
    search protocol designed to identify both metallic and nonmetallic
    weapons--a protocol that it also uses at AIT checkpoints when a
    passenger declines to proceed through an AIT scanner.             In adopting
    the new screening checkpoint SOP, TSA highlighted the benefits of
    streamlining    its    operations    in   a   forward-looking     manner   that
    -19-
    focuses training and resources on the types of searches that it
    already uses to search for both metallic and nonmetallic weapons.
    As a massive agency with roughly 60,000 employees and
    responsibility for security at over 450 airports, What is TSA?,
    Transp. Sec. Admin., http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/ideafactory (last
    visited Oct. 16, 2014), TSA has a significant interest in adopting
    protocols that can be uniformly and efficiently administered.4
    3.   Balancing the Interests
    Reduced to their essence, Ruskai's Fourth Amendment
    arguments largely hinge on four points:    (1) TSA must limit its
    search of Ruskai to a search for metallic weapons when she sets off
    a WTMD; (2) TSA has means of advancing its interests other than by
    patting down passengers who alarm a WTMD; (3) TSA cannot claim to
    have a substantial need to pat down passengers for nonmetallic
    weapons because it allows most passengers to board planes with just
    a WTMD search when AIT scanners are unavailable (and does not
    require pat-downs at foreign preclearance airports); and (4) the
    method TSA uses to determine who receives a standard pat-down is
    4
    Ruskai criticizes TSA's reliance, in adopting the revised
    protocols, on the idea that (largely) replacing HHMDs with standard
    pat-downs helps TSA keep its procedures "streamlined and
    effective," claiming that the efficiency rationale is unproven and
    "insufficient to warrant the repeated use of the [standard] pat-
    down on an extremely low-risk segment of the traveling public." In
    our view, however, the efficiency and training advantages of aiming
    to reduce the number of different screening protocols, and focusing
    on those that will be of the most use in the future, are fairly
    obvious.
    -20-
    unreasonable.   We address these arguments in turn.
    a.   Scope of the Search
    Ruskai reasons that because she is pulled out of line for
    a search only because her implants trigger the WTMD, TSA can search
    her only for metal, which it can do adequately using a HHMD.
    Otherwise, she claims, the search is not "reasonably related in
    scope" to the circumstances giving rise to it.   
    Terry, 392 U.S. at 20
    .   In support of this argument, she relies most heavily on the
    Second Circuit's opinion in United States v. Albarado, 
    495 F.2d 799
    (2d Cir. 1974).    In that case, when the defendant was patted down
    after alarming a WTMD, officers uncovered a package of counterfeit
    bills wrapped in aluminum foil. 
    Id. at 802.
    The Second Circuit
    concluded that the defendant should have had an opportunity to
    divest himself of any metallic objects, be searched with a HHMD, or
    be subjected to some other similarly less-intrusive procedure to
    find the offending metal before he was patted down. 
    Id. at 807-10.
    That court insisted that a WTMD alarm does not afford a license to
    search for anything, though it did acknowledge that officers may
    sometimes investigate nonmetallic items, due to the risk of, e.g.,
    plastic explosives.    
    Id. Forty years
    of experience diminish any persuasive force
    we might have otherwise assigned to Albarado's Fourth Amendment
    analysis of airport searches. Albarado rests on a presumption that
    the principal risk is metallic weapons, and thus implies that
    -21-
    searches for nonmetallic weapons must be limited to situations in
    which airport security otherwise "comes lawfully upon a container
    which may conceal such items," 
    id. at 809,
    or more generally when
    "specific, articulable facts exist to support" a reasonable belief
    that a danger exists, 
    id. at 810.
    Taken to its logical conclusion,
    those     presumptions   would    mean     that    TSA   could    not   search
    administratively for nonmetallic weapons without individualized
    suspicion, at least if there were no AIT technology available.              We
    doubt that the Albarado court itself would so hold if it had the
    benefit     of   considering     TSA's     well-supported    findings      that
    nonmetallic weapons are now the principal threat.
    More   recent      precedent     recognizes     the   threat     of
    "explosives in liquid or powder form."            Elec. Privacy Info. 
    Ctr., 653 F.3d at 10
    . The Eleventh Circuit recently observed: "Numerous
    . . . incidents of aviation terrorism have involved nonmetallic
    explosives."     Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 
    767 F.3d 1171
    , 1180
    (11th Cir. 2014).        "Metal detectors cannot alert officers to
    nonmetallic explosives, and the United States enjoys flexibility in
    selecting from among reasonable alternatives for an administrative
    search."    
    Id. at 1181.
    Contrary to Ruskai's unsupported assertions, the fact
    that a WTMD alerts TSA to Ruskai's metallic implants does not mean
    that she is less likely to have a nonmetallic weapon (though the
    record is equivocal on whether it makes it any more likely,
    -22-
    either).    The WTMD alert thus does not, we conclude, limit the
    number or type of TSA's interests in conducting a search. Instead,
    the WTMD alarm explains why Ruskai is one of the passengers whom
    TSA selects for a search sufficient to locate the principal weapons
    with which it is concerned.          Whether that selection criterion is a
    reasonable one we discuss at greater length below.
    b.   Alternative Means
    Ruskai urges that we find TSA's standard pat-down policy
    unconstitutional because TSA could employ a less intrusive search
    that still furthers its legitimate interests.               Although Ruskai is
    correct    that    courts    sometimes       consider    alternatives   to    the
    challenged search or seizure (as in Albarado, or, e.g., Blackburn
    v. Snow, 
    771 F.2d 556
    , 566 (1st Cir. 1985) (noting the existence of
    alternative adequate security measures in invalidating a blanket
    policy of strip searching prison visitors)), the alternatives'
    significance is circumscribed, as the "Supreme Court has repeatedly
    stated that reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment does not
    require employing the least intrusive means to accomplish the
    government's ends."         
    Cassidy, 471 F.3d at 80
    (internal quotation
    marks omitted). In any event, we are not convinced that Ruskai has
    posited any truly workable alternative.
    i.   Modifications to PreCheck
    Ruskai's first proposal is to modify TSA's PreCheck
    program.     She    argues    that    even    when   a   checkpoint   lacks   the
    -23-
    technology needed to confirm PreCheck status, she should be able to
    show TSA personnel medical records confirming she has an implant.
    But the security risks of requiring TSA to simply accept medical
    documentation as proof that Ruskai, or any other passenger, is not
    carrying a weapon are obvious.      Moreover, Ruskai is already a
    PreCheck member, and did not clearly challenge the search protocol
    for PreCheck passengers in the administrative proceeding, or in her
    petition for review.5   As PreCheck expands, her cause for complaint
    shrinks.   And if a checkpoint is not able to confirm PreCheck
    status, it would seem obvious that it could not confirm the
    authenticity of whatever medical documents Ruskai might show.
    Ultimately, the problem is that there is not yet PreCheck
    capability at all checkpoints where there are no AIT scanners.
    TSA, however, agrees with Ruskai that PreCheck should be more
    widely available.   Indeed, the agency represents that its current
    5
    At oral argument, Ruskai contended that the more limited
    PreCheck pat-down is also unacceptable, and continued that theme in
    her second motion to supplement the record. Her opening brief did
    not distinguish between the standard and PreCheck pat-downs, and so
    arguably encompassed both. However, in her reply brief, Ruskai
    cited the more limited PreCheck pat-down as being an alternative
    that is "more respectful of passengers' civil rights," and
    responded to the government's argument about the more limited
    PreCheck pat-down by asserting that "there is no reason why she
    should not be able to show the card at every security lane . . .
    and receive the same benefit that she would in a PreCheck lane."
    Accordingly, we consider her objection to the PreCheck limited pat-
    down raised for the first time at oral argument, and so forfeited.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a); Piazza v. Aponte Roque, 
    909 F.2d 35
    , 37
    (1st Cir. 1990)("Except in extraordinary circumstances not present
    here, a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the
    first time at oral argument.").
    -24-
    screening program calls for continuous expansion of its use of AIT
    scanners and PreCheck.   TSA's current use of both techniques and
    its ongoing efforts to expand their availability persuade us that
    it would make no sense to require TSA also to develop a system for,
    in effect, using medical documents in lieu of PreCheck.6
    ii.   Resuming Reliance on HHMDs
    Ruskai suggests that TSA could simply use HHMDs (and
    perhaps a limited follow-up pat-down) to confirm that the only
    offending metal on her person is in her joints--just as it did
    prior to 2010.   In particular, she emphasizes that this must be a
    reasonable alternative, because it is the screening approach taken
    in several Canadian airports that the U.S. government has included
    in the preclearance program.
    As to the foreign preclearance airports, the government
    contends that it has not yet fully completed the process of
    certifying that the Canadian airports to which petitioner refers
    provide a fully adequate level of security screening.     (Of course,
    the government seems to allow passengers to fly into the United
    States after such screenings, and so must consider their procedures
    at least minimally adequate.) Regardless, foreign airports involve
    additional legal and political exigencies.       In our view, in
    deciding how to allocate its limited resources, TSA may reasonably
    6
    Of course, a different situation would be presented should
    TSA change its program by abandoning its efforts to expand the use
    of these tools.
    -25-
    choose not to require foreign airports to use all U.S. procedures
    without compromising as a constitutional matter its ability to
    require somewhat more stringent procedures domestically.
    In any event, use of HHMDs is simply not an alternative
    means of finding nonmetallic weapons. Rather, in proposing this
    alternative,    Ruskai   is   simply   repeating    her   scope-of-search
    argument that TSA has no legitimate reason to search her for
    nonmetallic weapons.      We have rejected that argument because TSA
    has reason to search every passenger for nonmetallic weapons.
    iii. Additional Suggested Modifications
    As for the other modifications suggested by Ruskai,
    including    her   specific   requested   revisions    to   the   pat-down
    protocol, we cannot address them at length without discussing
    sealed material.       Suffice it to say that we have reviewed the
    record (public and otherwise) and are satisfied that Ruskai's
    requested changes to the protocol are not so obviously practicable
    and effective as to render unreasonable TSA's decision to reject
    them.   In     each   instance,   moreover,   the   modifications   Ruskai
    proposes would undercut the efficiency and streamlining interests
    cited by TSA. "[T]he United States enjoys flexibility in selecting
    from among reasonable alternatives for an administrative search."
    
    Corbett, 767 F.3d at 1181
    .        In Michigan Dep't of State Police v.
    Sitz, the Supreme Court explained that "Brown was not meant to
    transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the
    -26-
    decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement
    techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public
    danger," and that "for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the
    choice    among   such   reasonable   alternatives    remains     with   the
    governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a
    responsibility for, limited public resources." 
    496 U.S. 444
    , 453-
    454 (1990); see also City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, 
    560 U.S. 746
    ,
    764 (2010) ("Even assuming there were ways that [the officers]
    could    have   performed   the   search   that   would    have   been   less
    intrusive, it does not follow that the search as conducted was
    unreasonable."). Moreover, Ruskai admits that some of her proposed
    alternatives would not satisfy her own view of the Fourth Amendment
    standard.
    In any event, this is not a case in which the government
    has two alternative methods of searching Ruskai for nonmetallic
    weapons, and simply opts for the more intrusive. The current state
    of affairs is that at many airport security checkpoints, TSA has no
    choice on how to search for nonmetallic weapons (when it chooses to
    do so--a point we address further below).                 It either uses a
    pat-down, or it does not search for nonmetallic weapons at all.
    c.     Effectiveness and Underinclusiveness
    Ruskai contends that the government cannot prove that the
    new screening protocols are sufficiently effective even to warrant
    their adoption. She notes that the Fourth Amendment requires the
    -27-
    search to be calibrated to the relevant risk, and that TSA is
    required to use risk-informed evaluations of, and choices about,
    transportation security.        See generally, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 114(s).
    She maintains that TSA has not conducted sufficient studies to
    demonstrate the effectiveness of the new protocols--nor can it even
    collect the relevant data, because an individual alarming a WTMD
    will pass through to the sterile area of an airport after a "clean"
    pat-down, regardless of whether the underlying metal is found.
    We acknowledge that there is not the same sort of
    effectiveness data in the record here as courts have examined in,
    e.g., sobriety checkpoint cases.            Cf. 
    Sitz, 496 U.S. at 453-55
    (in
    considering     the     lawfulness    of    seizing    cars   at   a   sobriety
    checkpoint, emphasizing that "effectiveness" is part of the inquiry
    into   "the    degree    to   which   [a]    seizure    advances   the   public
    interest," and describing as constitutional various checkpoints
    with detection rates of .5% - 1.6%). Although we cannot discuss it
    at length, there is more support in the record than that cited by
    Ruskai   for    the   government's    claim     that   it   does   examine   the
    effectiveness of its security measures.               (Moreover, an important
    function of the standard pat-downs--deterrence--is notoriously
    difficult to quantify.        Cf. MacWade v. Kelly, 
    460 F.3d 260
    , 274-75
    (2d Cir. 2006).)        And as noted above, TSA is already taking steps
    to implement a more risk-informed screening protocol.                  Finally,
    Ruskai has adequately shown neither that section 114 is privately
    -28-
    enforceable nor why we should accept it as the relevant Fourth
    Amendment standard.
    A   variation   on   the    effectiveness   theme   is   Ruskai's
    argument that the screening SOP is, essentially, irrationally
    underinclusive, and so cannot be considered a reasonably effective
    tool for combating transit terrorism.           If TSA were patting down
    most every passenger when AIT scanners are not available, the
    foregoing discussion would likely lead easily to the rejection of
    Ruskai's Fourth Amendment claim.          TSA does not, however, pat down
    most passengers when AIT scanners are not available.                  To the
    contrary, most passengers who clear the WTMDs, which search only
    for metal, board airplanes without any further search of their
    person.   The resulting and significant underinclusiveness of TSA's
    use of pat-downs raises two questions:          Why does TSA not pat down
    most passengers at checkpoints lacking AIT scanners or PreCheck?
    And given that it does not, why does TSA pat down any passengers
    (e.g., Ruskai)?      These questions capture the core of Ruskai's
    argument.
    The answer to the first question appears to be that the
    prospect of patting down all or most passengers individually is
    like the prospect of stopping all cars on all roads at sobriety
    checkpoints: The scale of the operation generates collateral costs
    that are not present when a subset of travelers is searched.            In an
    airport, that cost would naturally include a large expense in
    -29-
    manpower and much longer lines and delays.
    As for the second, more difficult question, TSA has two
    reasons to search those passengers who trigger a WTMD alert for
    both metallic and nonmetallic weapons, even though it does not
    search passengers who do not trigger a WTMD alert for nonmetallic
    weapons.    First, since it must search such passengers for metallic
    weapons anyway, searching them for nonmetallic weapons as well
    offers an incremental benefit with low incremental cost. Second,
    TSA has an efficiency interest in training its personnel in a
    limited    number   of   techniques,   and   pat-downs   are   the   primary
    alternative to AIT scanners.
    Ruskai does not argue that no one should be screened by
    a standard pat-down.      Rather, she says that the standard pat-down
    should only be employed when there exists a suspicion that the
    particular person to search may pose an atypical risk of having a
    nonmetallic weapon.      In our view, in the context of administrative
    or special needs searches, the Supreme Court has not required the
    degree of precision tailoring advocated by Ruskai. Take, for
    example, 
    Earls, 536 U.S. at 836-37
    .          There, the Court rejected a
    Fourth Amendment challenge to a requirement that middle and high
    school students submit to a urine drug test in order to engage in
    extracurricular activities.7      The Court rejected the argument that
    7
    Although the Court noted that "[u]rination is an excretory
    function traditionally shielded by great privacy," the degree of
    intrusion on one's privacy involved in taking such a sample depends
    -30-
    such tests could only be given on individualized suspicion, or
    after the school demonstrated that there was a drug problem of some
    type among the group chosen to be tested.        
    Id. Rather, it
    relied
    on the contention that "the safety interest furthered by drug
    testing is undoubtedly substantial for all children," and concluded
    that   "testing    students    who    participate      in    extracurricular
    activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the School
    District's    legitimate   concerns    in   preventing,       deterring,   and
    detecting drug use," notwithstanding the suggestion that the policy
    may have been overinclusive.      
    Id. at 836-38.
    We acknowledge that Earls is not on all fours with this
    case--there,    the   Court   specifically    relied    on     the   custodial
    responsibilities of a public school, and characterized the search
    as negligibly intrusive.      
    Id. at 830,
    833; cf. 
    Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 178
    n.7 (suggesting that the "special needs" search at issue in
    Earls was distinct from administrative searches at airports).               We
    nonetheless find its guidance instructive, and note that while the
    search here is undoubtedly more intrusive, given the scale of the
    upon the collection procedures. 
    Id. at 832
    (internal quotation
    marks omitted). In that case, a "faculty monitor wait[ed] outside
    the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and
    [had to] listen for the normal sounds of urination in order to
    guard against tampered specimens" and then sent the sample for
    testing. 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted). This procedure,
    the Court concluded, constituted a "negligible" intrusion, and the
    invasion of students' privacy was "not significant." 
    Id. at 833-34.
    But cf. 
    id. at 841
    (Breyer, J, concurring)(noting that not everyone
    might find the procedure negligibly intrusive).
    -31-
    risk, the safety interests at stake are also dramatically more
    acute.   Cf. 
    MacWade, 460 F.3d at 269
    (discussing Earls and noting
    that   the   Supreme   Court   "never   has   implied--much   less   .   .   .
    held--that a reduced privacy expectation is a sine qua non of
    special needs analysis" and so rejecting the proposition that a
    search of baggage on the subway is only permissible where the
    traveler has a diminished expectation of privacy). Moreover, since
    the government "may deal with one part of a problem without
    addressing all of it," Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 
    422 U.S. 205
    , 215 (1975), "[t]he Supreme Court has been skeptical of
    challenges to the constitutionality of searches under the Fourth
    Amendment that suggest that a security policy's randomness or
    insufficient     thoroughness    contributes     to   its   constitutional
    deficiencies."    
    Cassidy, 471 F.3d at 86
    .
    In sum, precedent teaches that a school can conduct
    administrative searches for drugs by requiring urine tests of fewer
    than all students who might be equally prone to use drugs, and
    police may conduct sobriety checkpoints on one road while not
    stopping drivers on most others.        So too, here, the fact that TSA
    searches only some passengers for nonmetallic weapons where it
    lacks an AIT scanner does not render the searches unconstitutional.
    And this is particularly so where TSA has a reasonable explanation
    for why it searches for nonmetallic weapons on persons it must
    search anyhow.
    -32-
    Clearly, neither Congress nor TSA finds the current
    underinclusiveness in screening passengers for nonmetallic weapons
    to be acceptable in the long run--hence TSA's ongoing expansion of,
    among other things, AIT deployment.                The cost being incurred to
    install    AIT   scanners,       for    example,    makes   concrete       the     very
    substantial      weight    assigned      by     Congress    to     the    threat     of
    nonmetallic explosives.           And, as discussed above, even though
    pragmatic and efficiency considerations may outweigh (in TSA's
    judgment)     its    interest     in     screening      every    non-AIT-screened
    passenger for nonmetallic weapons, there is no dispute that TSA
    will have to conduct some follow-up search on individuals who
    cannot or do not pass through a WTMD without setting it off.                       TSA
    thus adequately explains the underinclusive nature of its use of
    standard    pat-downs      in     a    manner    that    does    not      belie     the
    justifications cited for conducting the search.8
    d.    Irrational and Unfair Selection
    Of   course,    if    the    selection      criteria    for    follow-up
    searches is invidious, then an otherwise reasonable search might
    8
    Ruskai points out that TSA’s interest in streamlining must
    not be too great because it does not use the standard pat-down on
    all occasions, such as when it pats down a PreChecked passenger.
    That TSA’s pursuit of an interest has limits does not, however,
    mean that the interest is invalid or without weight. Specifically,
    the intent in streamlining is not belied by having two levels of
    pat-down searches, one for those with PreCheck clearance and one
    for those without such clearance. Adding a third option would, by
    definition, move TSA further away from its goal of reducing the
    number of search protocols.
    -33-
    indeed be susceptible to challenge. We certainly do not reject the
    possibility that conducting an otherwise reasonable administrative
    search in an unlawfully discriminatory manner might violate the
    Fourth Amendment.   Cf. Wayne LaFave, 5 Search & Seizure § 10.6(b)
    (5th ed.) (in discussing profiling, suggesting that a screening
    "program involving some degree of nonrandom selectivity can pass
    Fourth Amendment muster only if the selection criteria tend to
    identify   suspicious   people,"    and   noting   that    the   "central
    considerations" for assessing non-random criteria should be whether
    (1) some selection criteria is necessary to avoid overwhelming the
    system and (2) "it reasonably appears that any other basis of
    selection is not likely to work at least as well" (citations and
    internal quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. City of Oneonta, 
    235 F.3d 769
    , 776 (2d Cir. 2000) (Walker, C.J., concurring in denial of
    rehearing en banc)(noting that Fourth Amendment doctrine in some
    ways protects against discriminatory enforcement).          After all, to
    constitute a valid administrative search, the government's search
    procedure must be a reasonable tool for furthering its interest.
    But Ruskai has not adequately presented a discrimination-focused
    argument as part of her Fourth Amendment claim.9          Accordingly, we
    9
    Certainly, Ruskai argued in her petition that TSA's policy
    is both overinclusive and underinclusive in that many are not fully
    searched, and individuals with implants are repeatedly patted down
    despite posing no objectively greater risk of terrorist activity.
    But a general overbreadth or underbreadth argument is not the same
    as a claim of invidious discrimination, and an overbreadth claim
    likewise fails under the rationale of Earls.
    -34-
    defer further consideration of this principle to the evaluation of
    her claim under the Rehabilitation Act, discussed below. Cf. Whren
    v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 806
    , 813 (1996) (emphasizing that, while
    the "Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based
    on considerations such as race," the primary constitutional basis
    for that objection is the Equal Protection Clause10).
    ***
    There     is   in    this   record    admittedly      some   flavor    of
    bureaucratic inertia.               Given the pertinent threats, however, it
    seems        that   the   inertia      tends    to   result    more    in    inadequate
    screenings than in excessive screenings.                   In this regard, it is
    remarkable that the administration and Congress have not yet
    managed to achieve full AIT capability, and continue to allow large
    numbers        of   passengers        to    board    without   any     screening      for
    nonmetallic weapons.                At the same time, though, TSA is a large
    organization, and its task is daunting.                   Importantly, TSA itself
    clearly finds the current status quo unacceptable, and assures us
    that it is in the process of greatly reducing (though perhaps not
    entirely eliminating) the aspects of its current program that
    trouble Ruskai.           Our review of how TSA conducts secondary searches
    during this transition requires, in turn, some deference to TSA's
    expertise regarding the nature of evolving threats, how people
    10
    Ruskai does not make an Equal Protection or selective
    enforcement claim.
    -35-
    behave in airports, and the capabilities of TSA's workforce and
    systems.    Within reason, choosing which technique best serves the
    government interest at stake should be left to those with a "unique
    understanding    of,   and   responsibility   for,   limited   public
    resources." 
    Corbett, 767 F.3d at 1181
    (quoting 
    Sitz, 110 S. Ct. at 2487
    .     And as the D.C. Circuit noted in assessing pre-ATR AIT
    scanners, the Supreme Court has refused to declare only the least
    intrusive practicable search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,
    and constitutional precedent does not demand that a search be
    "minimally intrusive" in order to pass constitutional muster.
    Elec. Privacy Info. 
    Ctr., 653 F.3d at 10
    -11; see also 
    Cassidy, 471 F.3d at 80
    .11
    In sum, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not
    prevent TSA from searching for both metallic and nonmetallic
    weapons on passengers who trigger WTMD alarms just as it does on
    passengers who decline to pass through AIT scanners.    Accordingly,
    Ruskai's Fourth Amendment claim fails.
    B.   Rehabilitation Act
    Ruskai's next claim is that TSA's security screening
    procedures discriminate against her in violation of section 504 of
    the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504(a)
    provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability
    11
    We note, too, that TSA tested and rejected search techniques
    more intensive than the standard pat-down.
    -36-
    "shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from
    the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
    discrimination under any program or activity" receiving federal
    funds.     At    issue   is   whether   TSA   procedures    subject   her    to
    discrimination under the meaning of the Act.
    Ruskai makes no claim that TSA discriminates against her
    intentionally in using the WTMD to select her as someone who must
    pass a secondary screening before entering beyond the security
    checkpoint.      Nor could she.    The WTMD is a facially neutral device
    aimed at detecting metal, not disabilities.         Many disabled persons
    pass through it without triggering an alert.               Many non-disabled
    persons trigger an alert.         Ruskai relies, instead, on a theory of
    unintentional discrimination, which she describes as "disparate
    impact."       She claims–-and TSA does not seem to deny-–that most
    persons who have a large metallic implant are selected by the WTMD
    for a secondary search, while most people who do not have such an
    implant are not selected.          TSA also does not challenge Ruskai's
    claim that she has a disability within the meaning of the Act.              And
    it presumes that many people with metallic implants are similarly
    viewed as disabled--not because the implant itself is a disability,
    but rather because they may have had a disabling condition for
    which    the    metal    is   a   "mitigating    measure."       29   C.F.R.
    § 1630.2(j)(1)(v).
    In Alexander v. Choate, 
    469 U.S. 287
    (1985), the Supreme
    -37-
    Court considered the question "whether proof of discriminatory
    animus is always required to establish a violation of section 504
    and its implementing regulations, or whether federal law also
    reaches action by a recipient of federal funding that discriminates
    against the handicapped by effect rather than by design."               
    Id. at 292.
       The Court "assume[d] without deciding that section 504
    reaches at least some conduct that has an unjustifiable disparate
    impact upon the handicapped."       
    Id. at 299.
        At the same time, it
    "reject[ed] the boundless notion that all disparate-impact showings
    constitute prima facie cases under section 504."            
    Id. The balance
    struck by the Court was to focus on whether the government action
    denied meaningful access to the government benefit at issue in the
    case.   
    Id. at 301-02.
    In the ensuing three decades, the Supreme Court has not
    revisited the issue of whether and when a section 504 claim can be
    maintained     in   the   absence   of     discriminatory     animus.      We
    nevertheless think it well established that what the Court assumed
    to be so is so--proof of discriminatory animus is not always
    required in an action under section 504.          See Enica v. Principi,
    
    544 F.3d 328
    , 339 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that "a showing of
    discriminatory intent or animus is not required in cases alleging
    a failure to accommodate"); cf. Higgins v. New Balance Athletic
    Shoe, Inc., 
    194 F.3d 252
    , 264 (1st Cir. 1999) ("Unlike other
    enumerated constructions of 'discriminate,' this construction does
    -38-
    not    require   that   an   employer's    action   be   motivated   by   a
    discriminatory animus directed at the disability . . . . [A]n
    employer who knows of a disability yet fails to make reasonable
    accommodations violates the [ADA], no matter what its intent,
    unless it can show that the proposed accommodations would create
    undue hardship for its business.").        Indeed, DHS's own regulations
    plainly provide that "[t]he Department may not . . . utilize
    criteria or methods of administration the purpose or effect of
    which would:     (I) subject qualified individuals with a disability
    to    discrimination    on   the   basis   of   disability."     6   C.F.R.
    § 15.30(b)(4).    While acts of intentional discrimination certainly
    occur, and are actionable, see Sumes v. Andres, 
    938 F. Supp. 9
    , 12
    (D.D.C. 1996) (medical provider's failure to treat patient solely
    because she was deaf constitutes discrimination under section 504),
    the disability laws often have as their target action--or inaction-
    -that "is primarily the result of apathetic attitudes rather than
    affirmative animus."     
    Alexander, 469 U.S. at 297
    .      Thus, a classic
    claim that an architectural barrier denies a disabled person
    meaningful access to a public facility requires no proof of
    discriminatory animus.       See Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City
    of Sandusky, 
    385 F.3d 901
    , 907-09 (6th Cir. 2004).             Nor does it
    require the type of sophisticated statistical evidence typical of
    disparate impact claims in Title VII cases.         Cf. Jones v. City of
    Boston, 
    752 F.3d 38
    , 48-53 (1st Cir. 2014) (describing the use of
    -39-
    statistical analysis to show disparate racial impact as evidence of
    employment discrimination).
    When the Supreme Court assumed that a disparate impact
    theory   could   apply   in   an   action   under   section   504    in   some
    situations, the situation it identified was a case in which persons
    with disabilities were denied meaningful access to a government
    program or benefit. 
    Alexander, 469 U.S. at 299
    . That exclusionary
    situation may fairly be described as the primary target of section
    504.   
    Id. at 297.
      The problem for Ruskai is that she can point to
    no government benefit, service, program, or facility to which TSA's
    challenged conduct denies her meaningful access.              Her complaint
    trains only on those airport checkpoints that lack both AIT and
    PreCheck capabilities. Even at these WTMD-only checkpoints, she
    receives on each occasion full and complete access to the secure
    side of the security checkpoints.           She also receives full and
    complete access to TSA's security screening program.
    Additionally,      Ruskai   admits   that   TSA    is    certainly
    entitled to require all passengers to walk through a WTMD, and that
    it is entitled to conduct a secondary search of all who do not or
    cannot pass through the WTMD without triggering an alarm. That is,
    she does not challenge the selection device that inadvertently, by
    detecting metal, generates the subset of passengers we assume to
    include a disproportionate number of those who have disabilities.
    Crucially, she also concedes that the secondary search itself does
    -40-
    not affect a person differently merely because the person has a
    disability.       In other words, the aspect of the secondary search to
    which she objects is an aspect to which she would equally object if
    she had no disability.
    Ruskai points to no case law adopting the view that any
    government        conduct     that    affects   a    group    that    includes     a
    disproportionate number of persons with a disability (e.g., a group
    of Medicare recipients, or hospital patients, or retirement resort
    residents, etc.) must be free from any unpleasant effects, such as
    dollar impact, waiting time, or lack of quality, unless those
    effects are fundamental or necessary to the government's program.
    And it is precisely this type of effect--neither connected to any
    denial of access nor motivated by discriminatory intent--that
    Alexander treats as outside section 504's target.                  
    Alexander, 469 U.S. at 299
    ,     301-02.         Specifically,   Alexander     rejected     "the
    boundless notion that all disparate-impact showings constitute
    prima facie cases under section 504."                 
    Id. at 299.
            The Court
    expressed the concern that because "the handicapped typically are
    not similarly situated to the nonhandicapped," straightforward
    application of disparate impact theory "could lead to a wholly
    unwieldy administrative and adjudicative burden."                     
    Id. at 298
    (citing Note, Employment Discrimination Against the Handicapped and
    Section     504    of   the   Rehabilitation     Act:        An   Essay   on   Legal
    Evasiveness, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 997, 1008 (1984));                  see also Patton
    -41-
    v. TIC United Corp., 
    77 F.3d 1235
    (10th Cir. 1996) ("A facially
    neutral government restriction does not deny 'meaningful access' to
    the disabled simply because disabled persons are more likely to be
    affected by it.") The "disparate impact" of which Ruskai complains
    appears to be just this type of effect deemed to be insufficient.
    Ultimately, we need not rest our holding on the foregoing
    analysis, concerning which the case law is sparse.                  Rather,
    Ruskai's argument on this appeal still fails even if we assume that
    one   might   maintain   a   section       504   claim   for   unintentional
    discrimination based on the imposition of a burden that does not
    result in a loss of meaningful access to a government benefit,
    service, program, or facility, and the effect of which is not
    enhanced by the disability.
    Our decision in Theriault v. Flynn, 
    162 F.3d 46
    (1st Cir.
    1998), is instructive.       Theriault addressed a challenge under
    Title II of the ADA to the New Hampshire Department of Motor
    Vehicles's decision to require an individual with cerebral palsy
    (who operated his car through hand controls but whose hands were
    visibly shaking when he went to renew his driver's license) to take
    an additional road test. 
    Id. at 47.
    He passed that test, and was
    issued a renewal license.     
    Id. We concluded
    that the ADA's demand
    for "meaningful access" was "not directly at issue" "as it [could
    not] reasonably be argued that Theriault was denied 'meaningful
    access' to a government benefit or program" because he received a
    -42-
    license and New Hampshire did not prohibit him from doing so.                        
    Id. at 48.
    Instead, we noted, Theriault's claim challenged "the method
    used to determine access to the government benefit, and his
    contention is that the extra eligibility requirement imposed upon
    him . . . constituted discrimination based on his disability." 
    Id. In determining
    whether the imposition of an extra test on Theriault
    as a condition to renewing a driver's license constituted unlawful
    discrimination, the court focused on "the state's obligation in
    balancing the rights of the disabled with the responsibility to
    ensure safety on the roads."               
    Id. at 49.
       Writing for the majority,
    Judge   Coffin       reasoned        that     when    symptoms      of   a   disability
    "concededly          and      objectively            raise      a     concern     about
    qualifications . . . the public entity may engage in individualized
    inquiry into whether the person is nonetheless qualified without
    shouldering     the        burden    of     defending    its    'discrimination'      as
    'necessary'." 
    Id. at 50.
    In response to Theriault's argument that
    the   state    had    other,        less    burdensome       ways   of   assessing   his
    qualifications to drive, the court pointed to weaknesses in those
    alternatives, and concluded that the state "cannot be faulted for
    erring on the side of caution when safety is at issue, providing,
    of course, that the triggering judgment is based not on stereotypes
    but on observable, relevant circumstances."                     
    Id. A similar
    analysis applies here.                 Indeed, it applies a
    fortiori given that TSA's selection of Ruskai for a standard pat-
    -43-
    down was made with no awareness that she was disabled at all.                The
    aim of the standard pat-down was not to determine whether Ruskai
    had a disability, but rather to determine whether she carried a
    weapon.      And, for the reasons stated in Part V.A of this opinion,
    we have found that the selection of a screen designed to detect
    both metallic and nonmetallic weapons to be reasonable.                       The
    aspects of that screen of which Ruskai complains affect persons
    with and without disabilities alike.        And, once TSA determined she
    carried no weapon, that very determination gained her access
    through      the   checkpoint   irrespective    of    any    aspects    of    her
    disability.        Collectively, all of these considerations eliminate
    the footings upon which a section 504 claim can stand.                 As Judge
    Coffin observed in Theriault, "when the safety of the public at
    large   is    implicated,   public   entities   must    be    permitted      some
    latitude in their judgments that individualized assessments of
    qualifications are necessary."        
    Id. Ruskai also
    contends that in order for us to find TSA's
    use of the standard pat-down permissible as the principal secondary
    search technique at WTMD sites, we must find the use of that
    protocol "fundamental" to TSA's program.             To that contention, we
    make two responses.
    First, as in Theriault, because Ruskai has not been
    denied access to any program, etc., one could indeed conclude that
    the government here need not prove that the alterations to its
    -44-
    search protocols sought by Ruskai would result in a "fundamental
    change" in the program, or that its chosen approach is "necessary."
    Reasonableness may well be enough.
    Second, even if reasonableness is not enough, what Ruskai
    seeks would indeed seem to require fundamental alterations to TSA's
    security program.      She can point to no additional reasonable
    accommodation that TSA could make so as to eliminate the burden of
    which she complains without adversely affecting TSA's efforts to
    efficiently deploy its resources to maintain airport security as it
    transitions   to   targeting   nonmetallic   weapons.    TSA   has    been
    installing AIT scanners at more and more checkpoints. It has ample
    reason to do so entirely apart from this lawsuit.       In the interim,
    to eliminate the disparate impact of which Ruskai complains, TSA
    would have to stop searching everyone who triggers an alert at a
    WTMD--abled and disabled alike--for nonmetallic weapons.         Such a
    change would require TSA to expand rather than reduce the use of
    HHMDs, reduce the number of persons searched for nonmetallic
    weapons, and eliminate the benefits in standardization, training,
    and flexible personnel assignments that are achieved by using the
    same standard pat-down procedure for WTMD and AIT alerts.            Given
    the extraordinary safety concerns at issue here, we cannot find
    that TSA's current refusal to implement such significant changes
    violates the Rehabilitation Act.
    Alternatively, Ruskai argues that TSA could establish a
    -45-
    nationwide protocol allowing the display of satisfactory medical
    documentation to justify refusal of a standard pat-down.                      TSA's
    PreCheck program already offers a broader exemption from the
    standard pat-down, and TSA is expanding that program.                        In any
    event, developing a program that would both establish a secure and
    acceptable form of medical documentation and develop procedures and
    information        systems    to     confirm      the    authenticity   of     such
    documentation at checkpoints would be a fundamental change in TSA
    practice that strikes us as not required by reason, and very
    possibly unwise.
    We   stress,    too,      that   our   judgment   regarding     TSA's
    position places great weight on the fact that TSA's current program
    calls   for    expanded      use   of    the    techniques--AIT    scanners     and
    PreCheck--for which Ruskai advocates.                   In this respect, TSA and
    Ruskai want the same end result.               Much of the air travel system in
    this country has been converted along these lines, decreasing the
    likelihood that anyone--including Ruskai--will receive a standard
    pat-down.
    TSA assures us that it will continue to expand its use of
    the preferred techniques, and the record provides no reason for us
    to conclude otherwise.         It is based on this understanding of TSA's
    ongoing efforts to streamline its physical search protocols and to
    reduce its reliance on legacy search technologies and techniques
    that we are able to conclude that ordering further accommodations
    -46-
    to be made now would require fundamental alterations.
    C.   Failure to Investigate
    Ruskai also objects that TSA failed to adequately and
    timely   investigate     her   complaints.      She   notes      that   the   APA
    authorizes this court to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld
    or unreasonably delayed" and "hold unlawful and set aside" agency
    actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
    otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), (2).
    Although   there   can    be   little     dispute   that   the    government's
    performance   in    responding       to     petitioner's    complaints        was
    unacceptably dismal, petitioner has made clear that she seeks
    nothing from this portion of her petition (she affirmatively asks
    us not to remand for reinvestigation, and only to address her claim
    on the merits).    Faced with the government's objection to her lack
    of claim for relief, she merely reasserted that the agency action
    was arbitrary and capricious, but again cited no relief that she
    seeks.   Accordingly, we address this claim no further.
    VI.   Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we deny Ruskai's petition asking
    that we set aside the decision of the Transportation Security
    Administration.
    -47-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1392

Citation Numbers: 775 F.3d 61, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24350, 2014 WL 7272770

Judges: Lynch, Lipez, Kayatta

Filed Date: 12/23/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (34)

john-gilmore-v-alberto-r-gonzales-in-his-official-capacity-as-attorney , 435 F.3d 1125 ( 2006 )

Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. , 194 F.3d 252 ( 1999 )

City of Ontario v. Quon , 130 S. Ct. 2619 ( 2010 )

Sumes v. Andres , 938 F. Supp. 9 ( 1996 )

ricky-brown-on-behalf-of-himself-and-all-other-persons-similarly-situated , 235 F.3d 769 ( 2000 )

ryan-m-patton-and-kathy-patton-strunk , 77 F.3d 1235 ( 1996 )

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville , 95 S. Ct. 2268 ( 1975 )

United States v. Knights , 122 S. Ct. 587 ( 2001 )

National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab , 109 S. Ct. 1384 ( 1989 )

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of ... , 122 S. Ct. 2559 ( 2002 )

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton , 115 S. Ct. 2386 ( 1995 )

United States v. Brown , 631 F.3d 573 ( 2011 )

michael-cassidy-robert-j-cabin-v-michael-chertoff-secretary-united , 471 F.3d 67 ( 2006 )

United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada , 558 F.3d 29 ( 2009 )

Whren v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 1769 ( 1996 )

United States v. Christian Hartwell , 436 F.3d 174 ( 2006 )

brendan-macwade-andrew-schonebaum-joseph-e-gehring-jr-partha-banerjee , 460 F.3d 260 ( 2006 )

Wildwest Institute v. Bull , 547 F.3d 1162 ( 2008 )

Michael Cousins v. Secretary of the United States ... , 880 F.2d 603 ( 1989 )

OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES CORP. LTD. v. Giralt-Armada , 503 F.3d 12 ( 2007 )

View All Authorities »