The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal

It's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is.

"You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?"

"Well I don't have a Real ID."

"Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."

So it was never about security at all then, was it?

And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.

Saying that there is “no legal requirement to show an ID” is truthy but misleading. Federal law gives the TSA authority over “screening” passengers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901 (“The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.”).

That means the TSA can do whatever it can get away with labeling “screening.” It doesn’t matter that Congress didn’t specifically require showing IDs. That’s just one possible way of doing “screening.” Under the statute, the TSA is not required to do screening any particular way.

What if an airline requires ID, is that legal? (Say to e.g. sell discounted tickets to 65+ people, or to avoid people selling tickets on)?

This has to make you wonder if the entire Security Theater is for security or money. I mean, if the RealID is supposed to increase security, then how does plopping $45.00 down help security? I'm pretty sure most terrorists can afford that. There is also the possibility that the RealID is simply another way the government is using to keep tabs on us 24/7/365.

Explain to me how qualified immunity is better than any ill it is supposed to address? And how is it that if you sue the government and win, then the judgement doesn't automatically award reasonable legal fees?

If true, unlikely to help the working poor flying (or attempting to fly) because recourse to courts here is in the realms of the rich or benificent.

So, Frommers should fund a test case.

Practically speaking, could I fly inside the U.S. without an ID? Just ask for the manual pat down? I assume I’ll need to show up like an extra hour early to give them time to harass me about it, but what are the chances that this works at all, vs just being turned away regardless of what’s legal?

I don't have a real ID and don't plan to get one, but I also basically never fly anymore (been over 5 years). However this is certainly further incentive for me not to fly - wonder if airlines will see a slight decline in travelers over next few years due to this.

> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.

Seems quite dangerous. In my country, this was the norm for local flights - usually smaller planes, 1-2hr flights. It was common that if you could not attend a meeting, a colleague would go with your ticket. Nobody cared.

Then one plane crashed. And some passengers weren't insured, as they were not officially on the plane. Those families could not get a body back, nor any compensation, as the company said that they could not prove they were on the plane.

I don't read the small print of IATA when getting a ticket, maybe I should someday.

TSA's searches without a warrant are illegal.

The fourth amendment:

>The 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And no, you cannot convince me that searching families flying to see grandma for Christmas is a "reasonable search".

If Real ID is so good, why do we have CLEAR? Why can I not skip the line with RealID?

If we are forced RealID, why not just make all the TSA checkpoints like Global Entry (or in several countries with IDs), fully automate them, using Real ID. That would get rid of CLEAR, and a lot of TSA agents.

I don't care, sure it's a clear money grab but it's a small price to pay for the (admittedly little) privacy

Interesting, the main and probably only reason I know this is a legitimate site and not some random person's blog post is because I heard about Frommers from the movie Eurotrip.

I understand peoples argument ... but isn’t this like a restaurant sign saying “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.

Yes, the law doesn’t require people to wear shirts. But the law also doesn’t require you to be serviced.

TSA has been an elaborate ruse to create a recurring revenue service program called “clear” and tsa-pre. Of course they are also able to monetize the ruse itself.

I once told TSA this: "I lost my Driver's License, and the state won't issue another for a month maybe. I understand there's an extra screening pat-down."

Before entering the porno scanners I put everything in my pockets on the scanner belt, and they didn't bother to pat me down. YMMV.

About 75% of the time I don't get asked for ID at all when flying within Schengen Europe. I understand technically there isn't any border crossing, but they have absolutely no idea who is actually on the plane. Wild.

There was no TSA in 1996 just private security screeners.

Fun fact, I rarely have to show my ID when flying in the EU. But what I don’t understand is why so many people don’t have an ID in the US. Seems like one of the very basic service governments should provide.

It's a real head-scratcher that the cohort that claims government ID is unattainable for some people hasn't taken up this issue. "Real ID" isn't something that is just delivered to you. Now we're going to charge money not to have it?

Frankly, the entire agency is unconstitutional. From the fact that they basically exist under a general warrant issued by the supreme court (although they invented a new catagory, "administrative search", which doesn't fundamentally change what it is) to the restrictions on the right to assembly requires free travel as well, although the current legal underpinnings are "creative", the 10th admendment which grants all non enumerated powers to the states, to the restrictions on bearing arms on the plane and a half dozen other parts. About the only part they might be able to stand on is commerce again, but then so much travel in the larger states remains in the state (ex dallas/houston, san fran/LA) requiring seperate security zones.

Bush should have _NEVER_ nationalized them, at least as a private entity they existed in a sorta gray area. Now they are clearly violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments.

And the solution isn't another bullshit supreme court amendment of the absolutist language in the bill of rights/etc but to actually have a national discussion about how much safety the are providing vs their cost, intrusiveness, etc and actually find enough common ground to amend the constitution. Until then they are unconstitutional and the court makes a mockery of itself and delgitimizes then entire apparatus in any ruling that doesn't tear it down as such.

And before anyone says "oh thats hard", i'm going to argue no its not, pretty much 100% of the country could agree to amend the 2nd to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons, there isn't any reason that it shouldn't be possible to get 70% support behind some simple restrictions "aka no guns, detected via a metal detector on public airplanes" passed. But then the agency wouldn't be given free run to do whatever the political appointee of the week feels like. But there are "powers" that are more interested in tracking you, selling worthless scanners, and creating jobs programs for people who enjoy feeling people up and picking through their dirty underwear.

It seems to me it is more of a penalty to encourage people to get Real ID while still allowing them to fly. I would imagine most air travelers have some kind of real id, passport, actual real id DL or global entry card. Very few people cannot get real id due to name inconsistency issues, but most are just lazy. Allowing them to fly for $45 seems reasonable to me, particularly if they cause delays at security.

In the USA it is possible to fly without an ID?

It's definitely just to get people to fly with a valid ID without ambushing the enormous number of people who have been living under a rock and don't realize they need a real ID. Otherwise they'll have a dozen or so people freaking out at the airport every single day for years.

No one should be forced to give an ID for a domestic flight. It always used to be that way. Every day there is huge amount of chipping away at our freedoms.

Someone pointed out amazing advice on how to skip certain checks in this thread, well done.

Any chance you get to regain freedom, by any means, take it.

I recently started going through The Mary Tyler Moore show and was struck by the timeliness of this quote from the very first episode:

Lou Grant: What religion are you?

Mary: Uh, Mr. Grant, I don't quite know how to say this, but you're not allowed to ask that when someone's applying for a job. It's against the law.

Grant: Wanna call a cop?

You have the right to try and fly without an ID. The airlines also have the right to tell you to buzz off and get lost and the airport operator has the right to decide they don’t want you in the building and trespass you if you don’t scram.

Citizens Council for Health Freedom has a whole page about Real ID. [0] Senator Rand Paul has a bill to repeal it. Crucially, you can still fly without a Real ID - there are 15 other forms of acceptable ID.

[0]: https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/

Don’t think legality matter anymore

My procrastination is starting to turn into a political stance. This isn't the first time it's happened.

$45 for KBA is crazy. They call somewhere and ask you what addresses you recognize, companies you may have loans with etc. The old stuff.

Oh good another poor tax, there hasn't been one for a hot minute.

> As described by Clinton’s counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this idea was conceived overnight as a way to show that the government was “doing something” in response to a plane crash that turned out to have been caused by a faulty fuel tank, not terrorism.

To be honest the worry about terrorists hijacking planes under Clinton proved to be quite prescient only a few years later.

I want to talk about Chevron deference. Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.

For those that don't know, Chevron deference was a legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the US in the 1980s that basically said that there is ambiguity in law, the courts need to defer to the agencies responsible for enforcing that law. Different agencies handled this differently. In some cases, they established their own courts. These aren't ARticle 3 courts in the Constitutional sense like Federal courts are but because of Chevron deference they had a lot of power.

There was a lot of good reason for this. Government is complex and Congress simply does not have the bandwidth to pass a law every time the EPA wants to, say, change the levels of allowed toxins in drinking water. Multiple that by the thousands of functions done by all these agencies. It simply doesn't work.

So for 40 years Congress under administrations of both parties continued to write law with Chevron deference in mind. Laws were passed where the EPA, for example, would be given a mandate to make the air or water "clean" or "safe" and that agency would then come up with standards for what that meant and enforce it.

Politically however, overturning Chevron has been a goal of the conservative movement for decades because, basically, it reduces profits. Companies want to be able to pollute into the rivers and the air without consequence. They don't like that some agency has the power to enforce things like this. The thinking went that if they overturned Chevron deference then it would give the power to any Federal court to issue a nationwide injunction against whatever agency action or rule they don't like. They standard for being to do that under Chevron was extremely high.

Defenders will argue that agencies are overstepping constitutional bounds and that vague statues aren't the answer. Congress must be clear. But they know that can't happen because of the complexity and that's the point. They don't want complexity. All those "legal" reasons are an excuse. Proftis are the reason.

Anyway, they succeeded and now agencies are governemend by what's called the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") instead. Companies and the wealthy people who owned them celebrated this as a win but I don't think they understand what they've done.

You see, there are complex rules under the APA about the process by which an agency has to go through to make a rule or policy change and, from waht I can tell and what I've read online, most of them aren't doing it correctly or at all. They seem to operate under the belief that overturning Chevron means they can do whatever they want.

So the TSA is a government agency. If they want to add a fee like this well, you need to ask if that's a major rule change. If so, there are procedures for comment periods, review, etc. If these aren't strictly followed, you can simply go into court and say "the TSA didn't follwo procedure" and the courts can issue a nationwide injunction until the matter is resolved and if there was any technical violation of the APA policy change procedure, the entire thing can get thrown out.

So if anyone doesn't like what this administration is doing and wants to take legal action to block it, they should probably look to the APA and see if they can block it on technical grounds. I suspect this applies way more than people think and APA-based injunctions will only increase.

Fun fact: for internal flights in New Zealand you don't need (and aren't asked for) ID. There is security but pretty lightweight. No shoes, laptops, belts, liquids, scanner crap.

This is a really stupid situation. We shouldn't be obstructed from flying without ID as long as we pass the regular security checks, and those security checks shouldn't be unreasonable.

What can we do to get there? Is anybody organizing?

I want to open my wallet. Where can I donate?

bankroll for president's private militia aka ice

I've flown without ID twice. Once because I lost my ID, once to prove to a friend that it could be done. This fee will fail for the same reason that flying without ID works at all - the law is quite clear on it.

Previously:

US air travelers without REAL IDs will be charged a $45 fee

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731

TSA's New $45 Fee at U.S. Airports Unfairly Punishes Families in the Fine Print

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101

This article seems oddly hung up on the legality of providing ID.

That’s all well and fine, but airlines have the discretion to refuse to board passengers, including for potential security risks.

So yeah, there are no laws saying you have to provide ID, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get to board the plane.

"illegal"

At what point has that stopped literally anything this government has done?

Not sure why the title was editorialized, but this is literally just one person's opinion. The title makes it sound like the legal community universally agrees, which is not true.

I hadn't heard about this, but this is blatantly against the explicit and implied "right to travel" that's baked into the 14th amendment and had over a 156 years of precedence since Paul vs. Virginia.

It's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.

of course none of this nonsense applies to those than can afford private travel

45 dollars? Form 415? Maybe I'm jumping at shadows but this smells like a Trump dogwhistle.

Where does the fee money go then? Into 45’s pocket?

I think I must be confused, but after reading many of the replies, I can't figure this out. Is the standard American perspective that one shouldn't have to show any form of identification to go through security, get on a plane, and travel anywhere within the United States? How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?

It's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is.

"You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?"

"Well I don't have a Real ID."

"Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."

So it was never about security at all then, was it?

And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.

The $45 pays for extra checks and scrutiny.

If true, unlikely to help the working poor flying (or attempting to fly) because recourse to courts here is in the realms of the rich or benificent.

So, Frommers should fund a test case.

How many of the “working poor” can afford to fly and don’t have a drivers license?

All 50 states and 5 US territories issue RealID compliant drivers license/ID

It’s annoying we don’t offer passport cards for free to people as a national government credential. The cost is similar to this fee, and your app and photo could be taken by TSA right at the checkpoint. You head to your flight after identity proofed, and your passport card could then be mailed to you.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...

> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.

Remember that you can opt out of TSA's facial recognition https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly

This isn’t like the 1st amendment.

Public carriers like airlines are not allowed to refuse service for the reason of refusing to show ID.

They can refuse for other reasons, but the are not “in the loop” when passengers currently get screened by the TSA, which is where RealID is “required”.

Did you have to show the airline your ID when checking in?

As far as I can tell, the TSA is one thing, while airline policy is another.

The law says it’s not required for security, but airlines might be justified in carrying out their own policies? Honestly curious.

So when TSA asked for your ID, what did you do and what did they then do?

Previously:

US air travelers without REAL IDs will be charged a $45 fee

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731

TSA's New $45 Fee at U.S. Airports Unfairly Punishes Families in the Fine Print

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101

The author has been qualified as an expert witness in several venues.

Where does the fee money go then? Into 45’s pocket?

How many of the “working poor” can afford to fly and don’t have a drivers license?

All 50 states and 5 US territories issue RealID compliant drivers license/ID

Remember that you can opt out of TSA's facial recognition https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly

This isn’t like the 1st amendment.

Public carriers like airlines are not allowed to refuse service for the reason of refusing to show ID.

They can refuse for other reasons, but the are not “in the loop” when passengers currently get screened by the TSA, which is where RealID is “required”.

Did you have to show the airline your ID when checking in?

As far as I can tell, the TSA is one thing, while airline policy is another.

The law says it’s not required for security, but airlines might be justified in carrying out their own policies? Honestly curious.

So when TSA asked for your ID, what did you do and what did they then do?

Yep. It's important to highlight this is not about flying without ID. It's flying without the new federal ID and their attempt to coerce people into getting the federal ID.

The author has been qualified as an expert witness in several venues.

The $45 pays for extra checks and scrutiny.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...

You could even double them up as government issued voter-ID and save all that hassle every 4 years. Or the current round of random stop-and-search going on...

While it's not a passport, I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.

My brother did this once and if you print your boarding pass before arriving you don't have to check in (obviously this is for a domestic flight with no checked bags). The TSA will question you and swab everything in your suitcase though.

Yep. It's important to highlight this is not about flying without ID. It's flying without the new federal ID and their attempt to coerce people into getting the federal ID.

“New” Real ID is 21yrs old at this point.

My American perspective is unless I'm participating in an activity that definitely requires carrying and presenting ID, I don't need to.

Driving is such an activity. Transiting national borders as well. Maybe opening a bank account, but really it should be up to the bank if they want to see my ID.

If I'm travelling but not operating the vehicle, why should I need to carry and present ID? I'm pragmatic, and it's convenient to carry and present my papers to the nice officers, but I shouldn't need to.

Demanding ID when unnecessary is a hallmark of a police state.

Can't speak for the "standard American perspective," but no, you should not have to show identification. Why should someone need to be tracked to travel? Why does a ticket need to be associated to identity?

We do have to show ID. But the federal government said it's not enough to use a normal state driver's license or passport. You need a special "Real ID" that's somehow allegedly better. Your old driver's license that you can pay for booze with, open a bank account with, and you know, drive with, isn't proof enough of who you are to ride on a plane.

Edit: I should note that I have one. But lots of people don't, because most people never replace their driver's license card.

> How does anyone associate your ticket to your identity?

Why does anyone in this picture need to associate my ticket with my identity?

Why would there be a need to associate my ticket to my identity?

You could even double them up as government issued voter-ID and save all that hassle every 4 years. Or the current round of random stop-and-search going on...

The people eligible for passports are not the same group of people eligible for voter id since there are a few jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in certain elections. Voting is also a responsibility of the states (even at the federal level), so there isn't really such thing as a federal voter id since each state has different eligibility requirements for voters that don't necessarily align with passport eligibility. Additionally, passport cards aren't interchangeable with passports in most countries.

Also, every four years? Elections happen more or less constantly in this country at some level or another. Federal elections are every two years, BTW, and that's if we ignore special elections for federal candidates. You should learn more about the system you live in.

The current round of stop-and-search would be enabled by making passport cards or some form of universal id. The current legal reality is that you do not need to prove your citizenship on demand if you are already in the US as a citizen. The burden of proof - rightly in my opinion - lies with the government to prove that you are not a citizen. Frankly, I'm quite uncomfortable with "paper's please" entering the US law enforcement repertoire. The fourth amendment was pretty clear about this.

With the CBP using mere presence validated by facial id only at legally protected protests as reason to withdraw Global Entry enrollment, it seems more and more clear that we do not need to be giving more power to the people who do not understand the 4th and first amendments. Removing people from Global Entry for protected first speech is, afaict, directly in violation of the first amendment even if Global Entry is a "privilege"

And also provide an API for online services to use so we are not beholden to Alphabet and Apple.

And while they’re at it, provide an electronic money account that allows for free and instant transfers.

But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure?

While it's not a passport, I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.

> I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.

None in the mid-Atlantic or SE that I've seen. Some states offer free gov docs under limited programs, eg:unaccompanied homeless youth.

Interesting, the main and probably only reason I know this is a legitimate site and not some random person's blog post is because I heard about Frommers from the movie Eurotrip.

I don't care, sure it's a clear money grab but it's a small price to pay for the (admittedly little) privacy

I don't read the small print of IATA when getting a ticket, maybe I should someday.

There was no TSA in 1996 just private security screeners.

I understand peoples argument ... but isn’t this like a restaurant sign saying “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.

Yes, the law doesn’t require people to wear shirts. But the law also doesn’t require you to be serviced.

My procrastination is starting to turn into a political stance. This isn't the first time it's happened.

Don’t think legality matter anymore

I recently started going through The Mary Tyler Moore show and was struck by the timeliness of this quote from the very first episode:

Lou Grant: What religion are you?

Mary: Uh, Mr. Grant, I don't quite know how to say this, but you're not allowed to ask that when someone's applying for a job. It's against the law.

Grant: Wanna call a cop?

[0]: https://www.cchfreedom.org/national-id/

Oh good another poor tax, there hasn't been one for a hot minute.

I want to talk about Chevron deference. Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.

Fun fact: for internal flights in New Zealand you don't need (and aren't asked for) ID. There is security but pretty lightweight. No shoes, laptops, belts, liquids, scanner crap.

$45 for KBA is crazy. They call somewhere and ask you what addresses you recognize, companies you may have loans with etc. The old stuff.

This is a really stupid situation. We shouldn't be obstructed from flying without ID as long as we pass the regular security checks, and those security checks shouldn't be unreasonable.

What can we do to get there? Is anybody organizing?

I want to open my wallet. Where can I donate?

"illegal"

At what point has that stopped literally anything this government has done?

45 dollars? Form 415? Maybe I'm jumping at shadows but this smells like a Trump dogwhistle.

> I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.

None in the mid-Atlantic or SE that I've seen. Some states offer free gov docs under limited programs, eg:unaccompanied homeless youth.

From TFA:

> The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which is set law, provides a “complete defense” against any penalty for failing to respond to any collection of information by a Federal agency that hasn’t been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), isn’t accompanied by a valid PRA notice, or doesn’t display a valid OMB Control Number.

As the article works through, as a Federal Agency the TSA cannot just label stuff "screening" and demand money, or at least, they can't do so and then make you pay it.

You seem to be under the impression that the word "screening" means TSA can do whatever it wants. When in fact, if you click on the link under the word "Screening" in the own link you posted, there is a definition provided.

> (4) Screening defined .— In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security.

You should consider reading what you posted.

> doesn't matter that Congress didn't specifically require...

Actually it does matter. Chevron deference is gone. If Congress didn't specifically approve this method, it's not legal

How can it be legally considered screening if you can pay $45 to bypass it entirely?

You have the right to travel without ID in the U.S. The TSA may demand it, and may tell you it's legally required, but that doesn't make that true.

"In fact, the TSA does not require, and the law does not authorize the TSA to require, that would-be travelers show any identity documents. According to longstanding practice, people who do not show any identity documents travel by air every day – typically after being required to complete and sign the current version of TSA Form 415 and answer questions about what information is contained in the file about them obtained by the TSA from data broker Accurint…."

https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/05/19/tsa-tries-again-to-im...

https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/03/18/buses-trains-and-us-d...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

The ill that it's supposed to address is people hassling government officials who are just doing their jobs. Their jobs require them to do things that people don't want them to do, like making you pay taxes or go to jail for committing crimes. They are prominent targets and can easily spend their entire career fighting off complaints.

Of course that promptly shifts the potential for abuse in the other direction. Supposedly, democracy is the control over that. If they are abusing their office, you vote them out. (Or you vote out the elected official supervising them, such as a mayor or sheriff.)

It actually does work out most of the time. The cases of abuse are really few and far between. But in a country of 300 million, "few and far between" is somebody every single day, and a decent chance that it's you at some point.

That said, it should be zero, and there's good reason to think that for every offender you see there are dozens or hundreds of people complicit in allowing it. The theory I outlined above can only handle so many decades of concerted abuses before they become entrenched as part of the system. At which point it may be impossible to restore it without resetting everything to zero and starting over.

Especially when the implication in the article is the police tried to delete a video from evidence -- and still ended up getting to hide behind qualified immunity.

Ugh.

Two separate things. Qualified immunity is just immunity from individual liability afforded to government agents when conducting government business, as long as they are conducting it properly.

Have you ever looked at legal proceedings involving criminals? It’s 95% noise and 5% signal. Criminals are, in general, bad people with a lot of time on their hands, and without qualified immunity you’d totally swamp the legal system with frivolous lawsuits.

What if an airline requires ID, is that legal? (Say to e.g. sell discounted tickets to 65+ people, or to avoid people selling tickets on)?

Yes, because private companies aren’t subject to the PRA like federal agencies are.

FWIW, I’m not sure that TSA ID verification does indeed have a PRA claim in the way the article asserts, and I am very sure that the PRA is a dumb law that needs to be removed: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/why-the-paperwork-reduction-a...

TSA's searches without a warrant are illegal.

The fourth amendment:

And no, you cannot convince me that searching families flying to see grandma for Christmas is a "reasonable search".

Unfortunately almost every court that has considered the question has concluded otherwise. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

Also, the question has been largely sidestepped by the fact that travelers consent to search by voluntarily proceeding into the secure (airside) area of the airport, and there are usually--if not always--signs at the TSA screening point that say so. It’s not like you’re being involuntarily searched at the check-in desk.

You are entering government property so they have a right to search you. Just like if you enter a sporting event they have a right to search you. You are free to not use either service.

Now we could argue that this isn’t a desirable way to do things but I don’t how it would violate the fourth amendment.

I was pickpocketed a few years ago and was able to fly domestically without ID.

They had some service that gave them a bunch of identity verification questions about my past and I had to go through a little rigamaroll answering them.

TSA has been an elaborate ruse to create a recurring revenue service program called “clear” and tsa-pre. Of course they are also able to monetize the ruse itself.

It's an elaborate ruse to condition Americans to the 4th amendment not being a real thing. The PATRIOT ACT which created the TSA was written by Joe Biden after the Oklahoma City bombing and passed after being reintroduced following 9/11 to end-run around the 4th amendment.

I once told TSA this: "I lost my Driver's License, and the state won't issue another for a month maybe. I understand there's an extra screening pat-down."

Before entering the porno scanners I put everything in my pockets on the scanner belt, and they didn't bother to pat me down. YMMV.

"YMMV"

I've had my testicles squeezed, fondled, but thankfully, mostly avoided.

That's because you have the right to travel freely between Schengen countries.

Asking for an ID or passport when embarking/disembarking would be similar to having an ID check at a border, and would therefore be a border control, i.e. no longer free travel.

Of course Schengen countries have the right to temporarily re-enable border checks.

In the USA it is possible to fly without an ID?

Yes, because the federal government can't assume that everyone has an ID, since they don't issue a universal ID. Any attempt to fix the fact that Americans don't have universal federal identification has met stiff resistance from a variety of angles, from privacy proponents to religious nuts who think universal identification is the mark of the beast.

It ties into why we still have to register for the draft (despite not having a draft since the 70s, and being no closer to instituting one than any other western country), and why our best form of universal identification (the Social Security card) is a scrap of cardstock with the words "not to be used for identification" written on it.

So, there's no universal ID, it's illegal to mandate people have ID, and freedom of movement within the United States has been routinely upheld as a core freedom. Thus, no ID required for domestic flights.

A lot of people are making general statements, and I'm not sure how valid they are. For example, in my neck of the woods (Canada), I have flown without ID and without passing through security. I would be surprised if the same wasn't true in the US. What I left out: the flights weren't through an international airport and didn't connect to an international airport. Same airport, different flight (one that did connect to an international airport) and passing through security was a requirement. In that case, as well as domestic flights through international airports, ID checks were the domain of the airline.

There are whole catagories of people without "ID" as such, like say underage children or people unable to drive. ID's in the USA have traditionally been either drivers licenses or passports. Many states have added non-drivers license IDs for handicapped, elderly, etc, but AFAIK they aren't particularly popular since those catagories of people don't tend to need them until they suddenly find themselves in a situation needing one.

It is, but it’s difficult. I am down visiting New Zealand and 3 times I have flown domestically here and there no ID check. I buy a ticket online, check in online, and scan a barcode at the gate. Is New Zealand an exception, or do a lot of countries not require an ID for domestic flights, and the US is the exception?

EU technically doesn’t require government-issued ID to fly either. They often don’t check for ID at all, and in cases where they do, legally any card with your name and photo on it would work for this „identification“. EU generally doesn’t legally require you to carry ID - but they can and will hassle you more and more if you don’t.

I had a friend who flew out of SFO without an ID for many years without much issue. It was much more difficult for them to get back.

If you lost your ID while traveling, what would another option be?

I fly between various countries in western Europe a dozen times a year and have done so for a decade and every single time I've boarded a plane I have had to shown a photo ID with my name on it that matches my name on the plane ticket. Most of the time the gate agent barely looks at the ID/name, but it is required to hand it to them. I have never once just walked on a plane without showing ID with my name on it, and I have never seen anyone in line in front of me do so, ever, and I'm talking hundreds of flights at this point. It doesn't have to be a passport, I see older Spanish people showing their driver's license only all the time, but it has to have a photo and a name (to match the name on the ticket in some way) and be a state issued ID. Again, they seem very lenient with that whole name matching thing and checking the authenticity of the ID (it isn't scanned, just visually inspected), but I've never seen anyone just say 'no' and get on a plane.

So what the hell part of the EU are you talking about where they don't ask for any ID at the point where you are boarding, whatsoever?

For reference, here is Iberia's page for required ID when flying, and I've seen that this is absolutely enforced every time when checking in and boarding.

https://www.iberia.com/es/fly-with-iberia/documents/spain/

Plenty of people have an ID in the US, the issue is whether or not those IDs are considered valid to get past security in the airport.

Did you know that Norway only introduced a national ID card in 2020? Until then if you didn't have a driver's license the only other state-issued ID option was a passport, and 10% of Norwegians don't have one. Until around 2015 or so banks would issue your bank card with a photo and your birthdate on it, and that was used as a de facto ID.

I've flown between plenty of EEA countries without ever having to show an ID. The requirement to have one in the US is incredibly stupid and only serves to make it harder for decent people to travel. It provides no actual value to safety.

It's a product of the lingering sentiment of a country founded on not wanting to pay taxes, mixed with (often warrented) mistrust of the government and truely insane immigration laws all jumbled togeather. Yeah, we would be better of with something universal and more robust then the toilet paper they print social security numbers on, but we got the system it was possible to pass through congress.

That’s completely false. You ALWAYS have to show your ID card to fly in the EU. Always.

Seriously, just stop trying to use us to justify silly arguments about the USA. Yes, Europeans must show ID to travel, must absolutely show ID to vote (it would just be ridiculous if we didn’t) and getting the ID costs us money and must be renewed every 10 years (and paid for).

If Real ID is so good, why do we have CLEAR? Why can I not skip the line with RealID?

Clear has nothing to do with security. You’re just paying to cut the security line.

Bush should have _NEVER_ nationalized them, at least as a private entity they existed in a sorta gray area. Now they are clearly violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments.

Inventing categories is what the court does. The Constitution is incredibly brief, and gives zero guidance on how to clarify conflicts. It has always been full of "common sense" exceptions, like criminalizing threats (despite the unqualified "freedom of speech" language) or probable cause (police can invade your house if they know you are committing a crime right now).

The sum total of these "common sense" exceptions, and the "legal reasoning" that extends them to the modern world, means that the document itself doesn't actually mean anything. Your rights, such as they are, consist of literally millions of pages of decisions, plus the oral tradition passed down in law schools.

In my state Real ID is just delivered to you.

It used to cost $10 for a replacement ID printed in the DMV. Now I pay $25 for a third-party vendor to line their pockets and mail me a new ID weeks later!

Democrats usually complain that ID requirements suppress voters’ rights. Your right to travel isn’t as thoroughly suppressed by this as the right to vote is. It’s not a strong excuse, but it’s not totally inconsistent either. And, at least before this change, there were still ways to go through security screening without ID. If those are not allowed any more, maybe Dems will take up the issue.

Which cohort is that? In my experience, the left has been against requiring internal passports since day one.

“New” Real ID is 21yrs old at this point.

They've been pushing it back every year because states haven't implemented it uniformly. Washington gave me a non real-ID card in 2022. IIRC the only real-ID option at the time was an Enhanced ID which can be used to cross the border from Canada and costs $100.