Opinion ID: 2764193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Irrational and Unfair Selection

Text: 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).