UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jonathan Corbett,
15-CV-__________
Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
v.
Transportation Security Administration,
Defendant
JURY DEMANDED
SUMMARY
1. Defendant Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) has required or coerced U.S.based airlines to participate in its secret “international security interview program,”
whereby individuals seeking to fly from foreign countries into the United States are
required to answer questions posed by a security contractor hired by the airlines.
2. Refusal to answer questions will result in denied boarding, stranding even U.S. citizens
overseas unless and until they comply.
3. This requirement is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent, when placed in context with the constitutional rights to travel and for
citizens to re-enter the country, as well as statutory guarantees of access to travel by air.
JURY TRIAL
4. Plaintiff Jonathan Corbett (“CORBETT”) demands a jury trial.
PARTIES
5. CORBETT is a U.S. citizen residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. CORBETT is a
frequent flyer who has been, and will continue to regularly be, subject to the demands of
the international security interview program.
6. TSA is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security.
-1-
JURISDICTION & VENUE
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, on the basis of there
being a federal question. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
8. However, if the international security interview is determined to qualify as an “order” of
the TSA, jurisdiction will be proper in the United States Court of Appeals. See 49 U.S.C.
§ 46110(a). Because the challenged program is designated as Sensitive Security
Information (“SSI”), 49 C.F.R. Part 15, Plaintiff does not have access to information to
determine whether or not he is challenging an “order” at this time. Additionally, 49
U.S.C. § 46110(a) sets a 60-day time limit for challenging orders, and the Court of
Appeals has explained that mistakenly filing in a district court does not toll this time
limit, and therefore concurrent petitions within both a district court and appellate court is
appropriate when jurisdiction is uncertain. Corbett v. TSA, 767 F.3d 1171, 1179 (11th
Cir. 2014). Therefore, Plaintiff is filing concurrently in the Court of Appeals.
9. Additionally, some questions raised require adjudication by the Courts of Appeals.
Specifically, Plaintiff challenges whether the international security interview program in
its entirety meets the requirements for SSI designation. SSI designations are TSA orders
and thus can only be reviewed by the Courts of Appeals.
10. Venue is appropriate because the incident that gave rise to this action occurred while
Plaintiff was en route to John F. Kennedy Airport (“JFK”), which is located within this
district, and because the TSA maintains offices within this district.
11. However, the venue for any challenge of TSA orders is proper, by statute, in either the
D.C. Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). While
Petitioner would prefer to file the concurrent petition in the Second Circuit since this
complaint is filed in a district court within that circuit, this is not an option allowed under
the law. Therefore, the concurrent filing will be made in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals1.
1
Plaintiff recognizes that it borders on the absurd that he should be required to simultaneously
file in a district court and in a circuit court in another part of the country that has no authority
over the district court. It is inefficient and, in Plaintiff’s view, a waste of limited judicial
resources. However, that is the law that Congress has wrote, as interpreted by the Courts of
Appeals that have addressed the matter.
-2-
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
12. On December 25th, 2014, CORBETT arrived at London Heathrow Airport (LHR), in the
United Kingdom.
13. CORBETT was ticketed to fly that day from LHR to John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) in
Queens, New York, on American Airlines (“AA”).
14. Upon entering an airport lounge operated by AA, a man at a podium (“Security
Contractor I”) asked to see CORBETT’s passport and began asking questions of him.
15. This question and answer session is known as the “international security interview
program;” however, travelers are not informed of this program and a search of the
Internet shows that no public acknowledgement of this program exists.
16. Initially, the questions seemed to be queries about the flight CORBETT intended to take
(e.g., “Where are you going?”).
17. However, the questions progressed into personal questions unrelated to the flight at hand
(e.g., “Why were you traveling?”).
18. CORBETT asked Security Contractor I if these questions were necessary, and Security
Contractor I replied in the affirmative.
19. CORBETT refused to answer the question posed.
20. Security Contractor I returned CORBETT’s passport and directed him to the lounge staff,
who allowed CORBETT to proceed.
21. However, Security Contractor I did not place a sticker on
CORBETT’s passport, as he would have had CORBETT
completed the interview.
22. A passenger lacking a sticker who approaches the gate is
sent to another security contractor to be interviewed.
23. Therefore, CORBETT, upon reaching the gate for his
departure, was asked to speak with another man at a
podium (“Security Contractor II”).
-3-
A sticker indicating that a traveler
has completed a security interview.
24. Security Contractor II did not force CORBETT to answer any personal questions not
directly related to his flight, and therefore CORBETT was given a sticker and was
permitted to fly.
25. Upon information and belief, the questions asked vary significantly based on the
individual asking them, and the intensity of the questions asked of travelers is “luck of
the draw” based on which interrogator they happen to be directed to.
26. Later, CORBETT contacted AA to complain about the security procedures.
27. AA informed CORBETT that the procedures he encountered were “controlled by
DHS/TSA.”
28. CORBETT then contacted the TSA to clarify that the program was their requirement.
29. TSA informed CORBETT that “American Airlines is required to conduct a security
interview of passengers prior to departure to the United States from an overseas last point
of departure airport. If a passenger declines the security interview, American Airlines
will deny the passenger boarding. The contents of the security program and the security
interview are considered Sensitive Security Information (SSI) under Title 49 CFR 1520
and its contents are not for public disclosure.”
30. CORBETT is a frequent flyer, having flown approximately 100,000 miles (approximately
200 hours in the air) over the last year, has consistently flown at least tens of thousands of
miles annually for each of the past 5 years, and plans to continue to fly at that level in
2015 and beyond.
31. CORBETT regularly flies internationally, frequently enough to require the Department
of State to add additional pages to his passport to accommodate the visa stamps.
32. Therefore, CORBETT is virtually certain to encounter the program in the future.
33. CORBETT intends to exercise his right to remain silent should he encounter this program
in the future, regardless of the nature of the questions, and legitimately fears (because the
government told him so) that this will cause him to be unable to return to his home,
effectively stranding him overseas.
-4-
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
34. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens the right
to travel, both domestically and internationally. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958). See
also Ibrahim v. D.H.S., Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, 06-CV-545 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
20th, 2012) (“While the Constitution does not ordinarily guarantee the right to travel by
any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain
possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times
is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive
or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.”).
35. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees the right to
remain silent.
36. However, the government has, via forcing a domestic airline to implement a secret
security procedure, now required that citizens seeking to re-enter the country explain
themselves and answer any questions presented to them or be forced to remain abroad
until they do, thus effectively abridging both prongs of the Fifth Amendment discussed
above.
37. This program thusly violates CORBETT’s Fifth Amendment rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
i.
Declaratory relief stating that the international security interview program, as described
by CORBETT, is unconstitutional.
ii.
Injunctive relief requiring that the TSA no longer compel, or in any way coerce, any
airline into implementing the international security interview program, and to notify all
airlines that they may revise their security protocols accordingly.
iii.
Nominal damages in the amount of US$21.00.
iv.
Cost of the action.
-5-
v.
Reasonable attorney’s fees, should CORBETT retain an attorney2.
vi.
Any other such relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
February 23rd, 2015
____________________________________
Jonathan Corbett
Plaintiff, Pro Se
382 N.E. 191st St., #86952
Miami, FL 33179
E-mail: jon@professional-troublemaker.com
2
CORBETT is presently representing himself in this action pro se, and is not seeking attorney’s
fees for any pro se work. CORBETT only seeks attorney’s fees in the event that he retains an
attorney at a later point, and only for the work completed by said attorney.
-6-