Constitutional Law - Free Speech - Sixth Circuit Holds That Civil Penalties Imposed for Interfering with Airport Security Screeners through Use of Loud and Profane Language Do Not Burden First Amendment

Harvard Law Review, April 2006 | Go to article overview

Constitutional Law - Free Speech - Sixth Circuit Holds That Civil Penalties Imposed for Interfering with Airport Security Screeners through Use of Loud and Profane Language Do Not Burden First Amendment


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--FREE SPEECH--SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT CIVIL PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR INTERFERING WITH AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENERS THROUGH USE OF LOUD AND PROFANE LANGUAGE DO NOT BURDEN FIRST AMENDMENT.--Rendon v. Transportation Security Administration, 424 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2005).

"It's not what you say, but how you say it" may provide a keen adage for the Dale Carnegie set, but it seems like a treacherously slippery test for adjudicating First Amendment claims. Nonetheless, constitutional scholars and weary travelers alike should pay heed. Recently, in Rendon v. Transportation Security Administration, (1) the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of civil penalties imposed on an airline passenger who used loud and profane language while protesting airport security procedures and screening delays. The panel reasoned that by prompting a security screener to shut down a checkpoint to retrieve his supervisor, the passenger "interfered" with security procedures in violation of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regulations. While the panel may have been understandably motivated by concerns of airport security and efficiency, it failed--in its strikingly short opinion--to define clearly the boundary between permissible and impermissible speech with regard to airport regulations. In the panel's defense, the distinction between protected speech and "interference" is inherently subjective and blurry. But Supreme Court precedent, most notably City of Houston v. Hill, (2) suggests that adding scienter and notice requirements could cure this defect and prevent the vagueness and overbreadth challenges stemming from it.

On July 27, 2002, Michael Rendon walked through a Cleveland airport metal detector en route to his flight. (3) When the detector's alarm sounded, Rendon removed his watch and turned to walk back through the detector. Security screener Richard Pindroh notified Rendon that he was not permitted to do so and needed to wait to be hand-wanded. (4) Rendon, frustrated by the potential delay, exclaimed that this procedure was "fucking bullshit." (5) While Pindroh resumed screening other passengers, Rendon waited to be hand-wanded and grew exasperated. (6) He cursed loudly to protest the delay, to which Pindroh responded that Rendon did not need to use profanity. (7) Rendon retorted that, if profanity offended Pindroh, he was "in the wrong line of work and ... should consider living in a bubble." (8) Rendon added that he had a "First Amendment right to say what he wanted." (9) Pindroh then shut down his screening line and retrieved his supervisor. (10) When the supervisor arrived, Pindroh told him that Rendon was being "uncooperative, unruly, and using loud profanities." (11) Soon after, a police officer removed Rendon from the screening area. (12) The TSA assessed a $700 fine against him for violating the TSA's "Prohibition Against Interference with Screening Personnel" (13) by "interfering with" and "intimidating" airport screening personnel. (14)

After a hearing, Judge Brudzinski, an administrative law judge (ALJ), upheld the penalty. (15) Judge Brudzinski found that Rendon "began arguing ..., using profanity and causing commotion until screening personnel stopped operation of the screening checkpoint." (16) From these facts, Judge Brudzinski drew two conclusions of law: First, Rendon "disrupted the operation of the security checkpoint." (17) Second, Rendon "intimidated" Pindroh by "putting him in apprehension of immediate battery." (18)

On administrative appeal, the Deputy Administrator for the TSA--the delegated agency decisionmaker for appeals--partially upheld the ALJ's decision. (19) The Deputy Administrator agreed that Rendon's behavior was disruptive, concluding that a screening agent would not halt a checkpoint "out of whimsy" and that, therefore, Rendon impermissibly interfered with TSA operations. (20) The Deputy Administrator rejected, however, the conclusion of law regarding intimidation, agreeing with Rendon that no evidence supported this charge. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Constitutional Law - Free Speech - Sixth Circuit Holds That Civil Penalties Imposed for Interfering with Airport Security Screeners through Use of Loud and Profane Language Do Not Burden First Amendment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.