Legal Victory for Airport Screeners

Legal Victory for Airport Screeners

A federal judge hands nine workers an unexpected victory in their battle against a law requiring citizenship for all airport screeners.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

On November 15, a federal judge handed nine airport screeners an unexpected victory in their legal battle against a law passed in the wake of September 11 that required citizenship for all airport screeners. But while the judge’s action temporarily kept the law from affecting the nine plaintiffs, it did not force the government to reinstate more than 8,000 immigrant screeners who lost their jobs because of the requirement.

Ruling in the case of Gebin v. Mineta, District Judge Robert Takasugi of Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction against the government, blocking it from enforcing the citizenship requirement pending final resolution of the case. “Plaintiffs have…sufficiently alleged a constitutional deprivation to warrant a finding of irreparable harm,” Takasugi said.

The Department of Justice issued a statement that defended the citizenship requirement and clarified the limits of Takasugi’s ruling. “Congress took this approach after determining that airport screeners were on the front line in the war on terrorism. The injunction does not apply nationwide, but only to the plaintiffs in the case,” said the statement. Throughout the case, federal attorneys argued that the citizenship requirement fell within Congress’ immigration and foreign affairs powers.

Plaintiffs are considering the option to expand Gebin v. Mineta into a nationwide class-action suit, according to ACLU attorney Ben Wizner.

The chances of the case making it past an appellate court remain slim, says Alex Aleinikoff, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and former general council for the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Clinton Administration. In matters dealing with immigration and national security, appellate courts have tended to favor Congress and the executive branch, making it likely that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be “quite deferential to Congress’s view that the citizenship requirement is an important qualification,” according to Aleinikoff.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x