1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARK D. ROSENBAUM, SBN 59940
BEN WIZNER, SBN 215724
ACLU FOUNDATION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752
Telephone: (213)977-9500
Facsimile: (213)250-3919
JUDITH A. SCOTT
ORRIN BAIRD ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, Of Counsel
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
INTERNATIONAL UNION 699 Exposition Boulevard
1313 L Street, NW Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (213) 740-2539
Telephone: (202)898-3200
Facsimile: (202) 898-3323
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Additional counsel next page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JEIMY GEBIN, VICENTE CRISOLOGO, ) Case No.
CHRISTINA ROBERTSON, LAY KHENG )
TAN, ERLINDA VALENCIA, RUPERTA ) COMPLAINT FOR
GONZALAS BOJA, ALBA REYES, ) DECLARATORY
ELEANOR MIRANDA, PABLO ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DOMINGUEZ, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
NORMAN Y. MINETA, in his )
official capacity as Secretary )
of the United States Department )
of Transportation; JOHN W. )
MAGAW, in his official capacity )
as Under Secretary of )
Transportation for Security, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEVEN R. SHAPIRO Telephone: (415) 334-7800
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Flr.
New York, NY 10004-2400
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
Facsimile: (212) 549-2611
LUCAS GUTTENTAG, SBN 90208
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
405 14th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510)625-2010
Facsimile: (510) 622-0050
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER, SBN 49957
JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH, SBN
189566
ACLU FOUNDATION OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
1663 Mission Street, 4th Flr.
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
JORDAN BUDD, SBN 144288
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO
AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
110 West “C” Street, Ste. 901
San Diego, CA 92138
Telephone: (619) 232-2121
Facsimile: (619) 232-0036
ROBERT RUBIN, SBN 85084
PHILIP HWANG, SBN 185070
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA
301 Mission St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-9444
Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
RODEL E. RODIS, SBN 95965
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FILIPINO
AMERICAN ASSOCIATIONS
2429 Ocean Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VINCENT A. ENG
JULIE A. SU, SBN 174279
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC
AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM
1140 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 1200 Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone: (202) 296-
2300
Facsimile: (202) 296-2318
ANTONIA HERNANDEZ, SBN 61489
HECTOR O. VILLAGRA, SBN
177586
BELINDA ESCOBOSA, SBN 214178
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL
DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 South Spring St, 11th
Flr.
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This case challenges the denial to otherwise qualified
lawful permanent residents of the United States of the opportunity
for continuing employment as screeners at the Los Angeles (“LAX”)
and San Francisco (“SFO”) International Airports, on the sole basis
of citizenship status. The case is brought pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. This court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,
and 1367. Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory and injunctive relief
is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 1343(a)(4).
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims herein occurred in this district.
II. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
3. Our nation properly regards itself with pride as a
nation of immigrants. It is therefore an integral part of our
heritage and our mission as a country that we do not brand non-
citizens as undesirables, stereotyping by citizenship status alone
lawful non-citizens among us as dangerous, disloyal, criminal, or
terrorist. For the most part, our institutions of government have
stood firm against such characterizations, but not always. In
times of war, we have sometimes succumbed to xenophobia against
non-citizens which has caused severe hardship and humiliation and
which has tarnished our history even as we overcame enemies of
freedom. The internment of non-citizens and American citizens of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Japanese descent during World War II, and the Palmer Raids and
subsequent arrests and deportations of non-citizens at the time of
World War I, stand out as two such examples of regrettable and
discriminatory governmental conduct against non-citizens, conduct
that later generations have uniformly condemned.
4. This suit is brought so that the horrific events of
September 11, 2001 do not become a basis for another unwarranted
denial of the rights and liberties guaranteed to non-citizens by
the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. The terrorist hijacking
of four airliners confirmed the need to improve aviation security
on flights across the United States. In response, Congress passed
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (“ATSA”), Public Law
No. 107-71, and this legislation was signed into law on November
19, 2001. Congress’ sole stated purpose in enacting ATSA was “[to]
improve aviation security.” ATSA thereby includes numerous
provisions rationally intended to increase aviation security by,
inter alia, deploying air marshals on flights, expanding screening
of passengers and baggage, enhancing the training of flight and
cabin crew, and providing for federal control of the screening
function. However, section 111 of ATSA adds a new and unwarranted
precondition for employment as an airport screener: United States
citizenship.
5. As a direct consequence of this provision, thousands of
lawful permanent residents of all nationalities who are currently
employed as airport screeners -- many of whom are in the process of
becoming naturalized citizens, and many of whom have perfect
personnel records and have been routinely commended for their good
work -- will be summarily fired from their jobs without any process
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whatsoever to determine whether their continued employment would
genuinely pose a security risk. These women and men are prohibited
by ATSA from eligibility to reapply as federal screeners,
notwithstanding that some have worked for more than ten years at
their present employment. Those screeners who are citizens, on the
other hand, are eligible to become federal screeners.
6. Even those non-citizen screeners who are veterans of the
United States armed forces will be barred from eligibility for
continued employment under ATSA. Indeed, non-citizens may be
members of our military, and lawful permanent residents are
required by law to register for the draft. Non-citizens may also
serve in the National Guard, which, after September 11, now
performs armed security duties at screening stations side by side
with non-citizen screeners whose employment will be terminated by
ATSA.
7. Moreover, even under ATSA, non-citizens may continue to
be employed in numerous security-sensitive jobs both within and
without our nation's airports. In airports alone, thousands of
employees have direct and unsupervised access to passenger luggage,
aircraft, and even the airfields, without any requirement of
citizenship status. A partial listing of these employee
classifications includes: pilots, flight attendants, baggage
handlers, mechanics, cargo loaders, plane cleaners, janitors, food
concessionaires, fuelers, some cargo deliverers, contractors that
clean planes, drivers, guards, as well as other airline and airport
personnel.
8. The discriminatory provisions of section 111 of ATSA
accordingly serve no rational interest of furthering aviation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
security, let alone any compelling interest narrowly tailored to
accomplish that end. In fact, the most immediate impact of the
citizenship requirement will be to jeopardize, rather than enhance,
aviation security. In airports such as SFO, where more than 80
percent of screeners are currently non-citizens, enforcement of the
citizenship requirement will virtually eliminate all experienced
and tested screeners in favor of new employees with no background
or know-how in this difficult security work. Legitimate concerns
about whether airport personnel represent security risks should be
met by instituting such measures as thorough background checks and
improved training, both already provided for by ATSA.
III. PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
9. Plaintiff JEIMY GEBIN is a 21-year-old female lawful
permanent resident who resides in Hawthorne, California with her
husband and two-year-old son, both of whom are United States
citizens. She served from 1997 to 2000 in the United States Army,
from which she was honorably discharged as an E4 Specialist. Ms.
GEBIN fled El Salvador with her family when she was five years old
to escape the civil war. She obtained her green card five years
ago, and her application for United States citizenship is pending.
Ms. GEBIN is a graduate of Washington Prep High School in Los
Angeles. She has worked as a screener in Terminal 4 at LAX,
providing security to American Airlines, since September, 2001, and
has been promoted to part-time supervisor. But for implementation
of section 111, Ms. GEBIN would be eligible to apply for continuing
employment as a federal screener.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Plaintiff VICENTE CRISOLOGO is a 68-year-old male lawful
permanent resident who resides with his wife in Daly City,
California. He has a son and two grandchildren, ages four and six,
who are all United States citizens. He is a member of the Board
of Trustees of the Daly City United Methodist Church and a former
member of the Senior Citizens of Daly City. Mr. CRISOLOGO arrived
in the United States three years ago from the Philippines, where he
worked for the United American Pharmaceutical Company and studied
law. He will be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship in
approximately three years. Mr. CRISOLOGO is a reserve member of
the Philippine Army and holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the
Military Police. His brother died at Bataan fighting alongside
American soldiers during World War II. Mr. CRISOLOGO has worked
for two years for International Total Services in Terminal A at
SFO, performing three different jobs: screener; special services
(guard to secure airplane once parked and to conduct occasional
random luggage checks); and customer service. He is a licensed
security guard. But for implementation of section 111, Mr.
CRISOLOGO would be eligible to apply for continuing employment as a
federal screener.
11. Plaintiff CHRISTINA ROBERTSON is a 19-old-female United
States national from American Samoa, an unincorporated territory of
the United States. Although she carries a United States passport
and has a social security card, she is not a citizen. Ms.
ROBERTSON has resided in Los Angeles for four years and is a
graduate of Paramount High School. She is an active member of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Ms. ROBERTSON has
been employed as a screener at LAX since September, 2000, and has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
been promoted to certified supervisor by Globe Security. But for
implementation of section 111, Ms. ROBERTSON would be eligible to
apply for continuing employment as a federal screener.
12. Plaintiff LAY KHENG TAN is a 57-year-old female lawful
permanent resident who resides in San Francisco, California. Her
application for United States citizenship is pending. Ms. TAN is
of Chinese ancestry but was raised in Burma, where she resided
until she immigrated to the U.S. in 1996. She is a college
graduate with an advanced degree in economics, and she worked in
Burma as a supervisor in a government trade corporation. Ms. TAN
has worked as a screener for International Total Services at SFO
since June, 2000. But for implementation of section 111, Ms. TAN
would be eligible to apply for continuing employment as a federal
screener.
13. Plaintiff ERLINDA VALENCIA is a 56-year-old female
lawful permanent resident who resides in Pacifica, California. Her
application for United States citizenship is pending. Ms. VALENCIA
has six children and four grandchildren; one of her children and
all of her grandchildren are U.S. citizens. She has worked as a
screener at SFO since her arrival from the Philippines 14 years
ago, has been a supervisor and manager, and has received numerous
commendations for her good work, including one for detecting a
loaded gun. She is currently employed by Globe Security and works
in the American Airlines terminal at SFO. But for implementation
of section 111, Ms. VALENCIA would be eligible to apply for
continuing employment as a federal screener.
14. Plaintiff RUPERTA “RUBY” GONZALAS BOJA is a female
lawful permanent resident who arrived in this country from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Philippines approximately five years ago. Her application for
United States citizenship is pending. Ms. GONZALAS BOJA lives in
San Francisco with her husband, and has a sister who is a United
States citizen. Ms. GONZALAS BOJA graduated from college in the
Philippines and worked in religious radio and television. She has
worked as a screener at SFO for five years and has received several
commendations. She also works a second job in the airport gift
shop, and sometimes works as many as 16 hours a day. But for
implementation of section 111, Ms. GONZALAS BOJA would be eligible
to apply for continuing employment as a federal screener.
15. Plaintiff ALBA REYES is a 23-year-old female lawful
permanent resident who resides in Los Angeles. Ms. REYES' mother
and two younger sisters are United States citizens, and her own
application for citizenship is pending. Ms. REYES was born in El
Salvador and came to this country when she was 11 years old to
escape the civil war. Her father was killed by the Salvadoran
military when she was a child. Ms. REYES graduated from Fairfax
High School in Los Angeles, and from Glendale Career College, and
she is currently enrolled at Santa Monica College. She has worked
as a screener for Argenbright in the United Airlines terminal at
(LAX) since November of 2000. But for implementation of section
111, Ms. REYES would be eligible to apply for continuing employment
as a federal screener.
16. Plaintiff ELEANOR MIRANDA is a 64-year-old female lawful
permanent resident who resides in Daly City, California. Ms.
MIRANDA has three children and 11 grandchildren who are United
States citizens. She arrived in this country from the Philippines
approximately five years ago and has been employed as a screener at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SFO, in the United Airlines terminal, for three years. But for
implementation of section 111, MS. MIRANDA would be eligible to
apply for continuing employment as a federal screener.
17. Plaintiff PABLO DOMINGUEZ is a 20-year-old male lawful
permanent resident who resides in Los Angeles. Mr. DOMINGUEZ fled
El Salvador with his family in 1989 to escape the civil war. His
father and sister are United States citizens, and his own
application for citizenship is pending. Mr. DOMINGUEZ has worked
as a screener for Argenbright Security at LAX for more than a year
and is also a full-time student at DeVry Institute in Long Beach,
studying to become an engineer. But for implementation of section
111, Mr. DOMINGUEZ would be eligible to apply for continuing
employment as a federal screener.
DEFENDANTS
18. Defendant NORMAN Y. MINETA is Secretary of the United
States Department of Transportation. In that capacity, he is the
principal advisor to the President in all matters relating to
federal transportation programs, and he oversees the formulation
and implementation of all national transportation policies,
including aviation security policies. Secretary MINETA is sued in
his official capacity.
19. Defendant JOHN W. MAGAW is Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security and is head of the Transportation
Security Administration. In that capacity, he is responsible for
security in all modes of transportation, including civil aviation.
Under Secretary MAGAW is directly responsible for the deployment of
federal screeners to all airports in the United States within one
year of passage of the Aviation Transportation and Security Act,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and thus is charged with the implementation of ATSA's
discriminatory hiring policy. Under Secretary MAGAW is sued in his
official capacity.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
20. Since 1973, following a series of hijackings involving
commercial airliners, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
required that all air carriers operating in the United States
maintain security screening checkpoints to prevent or deter
passengers from carrying dangerous objects aboard aircraft.
Although the FAA has exercised some regulatory oversight of the
screening function, the airlines themselves have had primary
responsibility for ensuring the safety of air travel. To that end,
the FAA has further directed the airlines to control access to
airport facilities and aircraft; question passengers to ensure that
their baggage has been solely under the passengers' control; scan
the checked baggage of certain passengers; and generally ensure a
safe and secure travel environment.
21. The vulnerability of our aviation security system was
well known long before the tragic events of September 11. In
particular, concerns have long existed about the ability of
screeners to detect weapons and other dangerous objects. An FAA
study from as far back as 1979 attributed poor screener performance
to three factors: high employee turnover, low pay, and inadequate
training, all of which combine to leave few skilled and experienced
screeners on the job at any given time. Numerous subsequent
reports by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) and by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
presidential commissions have identified precisely the same factors
as being principally responsible for screeners' performance
problems. For example, the GAO recently reported that during the
12 months between May, 1998 and April, 1999, turnover averaged 126
percent among screeners at 19 large airports, and one airport
reported turnover as high as 416 percent.
22. The GAO, FAA, and the aviation industry itself have all
attributed the high turnover to the low wages and minimal benefits
screeners receive, as well as the stress of the job. As the GAO
observed: “It is common for the starting wages at airport fast-
food restaurants to be higher than the wages screeners receive.”
Notably, no government report has ever identified the citizenship
or nationality of screeners as having any connection to the ongoing
problems with security.
B. THE AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT (ATSA)
23. Notwithstanding the repeated warnings and
recommendations of the GAO and other expert bodies, Congress did
not undertake a comprehensive overhaul of aviation security prior
to the September 11 attacks. That event brought the weaknesses in
our civil aviation security system into dramatic focus, and
Congress responded by enacting the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, signed into law by the President on November 19,
2001. The Act includes many reforms intended to improve aviation
security, chief among them the creation of a new governmental
entity within the Department of Transportation, the Transportation
Security Agency, under the direction of a new Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security. The Act also places the federal
government squarely in control of aviation security, by ending the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
role of the airlines in the operation of screening checkpoints and
providing for the creation of a federal screener workforce.
24. ATSA establishes a one-year deadline for the deployment
of a full federal screener workforce. The Act also sets forth
minimum qualifications for individuals to be hired by the United
States as security screeners. To be eligible for employment as a
screener, an applicant must: possess a high school diploma or
“experience that the Under Secretary has determined to be
sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the
position”; possess basic aptitudes and physical abilities; be able
to read, speak, and write English; and undergo specialized
training. The applicant must also be a citizen of the United
States.
C. IMPACT ON SECURITY
25. As a direct consequence of the citizenship requirement,
thousands of non-citizens currently employed as screeners will be
categorically ineligible to apply for federal screening positions.
At LAX and SFO alone, lawful permanent residents from the
Philippines, China, Fiji, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Mexico,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Ethiopia, as well as from
other countries, will be prohibited from seeking continued
employment as screeners. Even United States nationals, who carry
U.S. passports, elect observers to the U.S. Congress, and “owe[]
permanent allegiance to the United States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22),
will be excluded from eligibility.
26. The citizenship requirement is not rationally related to
Congress's sole, and worthy, purpose in enacting ATSA: to improve
aviation security. In fact, the categorical exclusion of thousands
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of non-citizen screeners from eligibility for employment as federal
screeners will harm security, by depleting the ranks of experienced
and qualified applicants for the new positions -- positions that
are likely to be difficult to fill in the time-frame mandated by
Congress. It is that concern that compelled San Francisco Mayor
Willie L. Brown, Jr. and SFO Director John L. Martin to write to
Defendant MINETA to protest the “loss of such a large number of
trained security personnel” that will result from ATSA's
citizenship requirement. More than 80 percent of all screeners at
SFO are non-citizens and will be ineligible for employment as
federal screeners. At LAX, more than 40 percent of screeners are
non-citizens. On information and belief, the numbers are similar
at other major airports, including Miami and Ft. Lauderdale (70
percent non-citizen); Dulles (80 percent non-citizen); and
Sacramento (85 percent non-citizen).
27. At SFO, screeners such as plaintiff ERLINDA VALENCIA,
who has 14 years of on-the-job experience, and plaintiff VICENTE
CRISOLOGO, who is a licensed security guard and reserve Lieutenant
Colonel in the Philippine armed forces, will be ineligible for
continued employment as screeners, notwithstanding their sterling
credentials. At LAX, plaintiff JEIMY GEBIN, a three-year veteran
of the United States Army, and plaintiff CHRISTINA ROBERTSON, a
United States national and experienced supervisor, will be removed
from their jobs in favor of applicants with no prior experience as
screeners. The categorical exclusion of non-citizens from the new
federal screener positions will not only deprive the airports of
their most experienced and qualified screeners, but will deprive
the new screeners themselves of the benefits of on-the-job
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
supervision by screeners with more than classroom knowledge. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
effect of ATSA's exclusion will be to jeopardize the effectiveness
of security screening at several major airports.
D. NON-CITIZENS AND OTHER SECURITY-SENSITIVE JOBS
28. ATSA has absolutely no effect on the continued
employment of tens of thousands of non-citizens in security-
sensitive jobs both within and without airports. In airports,
workers of numerous classifications have virtually unrestricted
access to secure areas, including aircraft, airfields, and places
where passenger luggage is stored. Yet no other airport employees
are subject to ATSA's citizenship requirement. Even pilots and
flight attendants, who are seemingly in the position to do the most
harm to aviation security, may be non-citizens. Assuming that a
nexus did exist between citizenship status and security, ATSA's
prohibition against non-citizen screeners alone is so under-
inclusive as to be wholly irrational.
29. In fact, no such nexus exists, as evidenced by the
inclusion of non-citizens in our armed forces, our National Guard,
and in many other security-related positions. Lawful permanent
residents are required to register for the Selective Service. The
federal government does not prohibit non-citizens from providing
security at courthouses, nuclear facilities, and even military
installations; indeed, on information and belief, our government
contracts with many of the same security companies that currently
provide screeners to airports to provide security in those other
secure settings. That non-citizens can be permitted -- and even
required -- to serve our country in the military and other highly
sensitive positions, yet be barred from employment in a single
position in our airports, defies rationality.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. ATSA's citizenship requirement for screeners is further
irrational in that it discriminates against screeners with years of
experience, and even military training, in favor of citizens with
no such qualifications. ATSA itself requires the Under Secretary
of Transportation for Security to give priority to veterans of the
United States military in hiring federal screeners; however, if
those same veterans, like Plaintiff JEIMY GEBIN, are not yet U.S.
citizens, ATSA deems them less suitable for employment as screeners
than any U.S. citizen, however inexperienced or incompetent. The
inclusion of tens of thousands of non-citizens among the armed
forces protecting our nation provides the strongest evidence that
citizenship is no proxy for either loyalty or competence.
31. ATSA's discriminatory prohibition against the employment
of non-citizens as federal screeners accordingly violates
plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of law, as guaranteed by the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
V. REQUISITES FOR RELIEF
32. By reason of the factual allegations set forth above, an
actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and
defendants. Plaintiffs contend that Section 111 of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act is unconstitutional and illegal as
applied to them, while defendants are charged with implementing
that statutory provision. A declaration from this court that the
challenged provision violates plaintiffs' constitutional rights is
therefore necessary and appropriate.
33. Defendants' policies and enforcement of the statute will
result in irreparable harm to plaintiffs, including but not limited
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to violations of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have no
plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs
described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief
restraining defendants from engaging in and enforcing the
unconstitutional acts and policies described herein.
VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution
34. Plaintiffs incorporate ¶¶ 1-33 of this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
35. The citizenship requirement set forth in section 111 of
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act denies plaintiffs the
equal protection of the laws guaranteed to them by the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
enter judgment in their favor:
(a) Declaring that the citizenship requirement set forth in
Section 111 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as it
applies to lawful permanent residents and United States nationals,
violates plaintiffs' right to the equal protection of the laws as
guaranteed to them by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b) Enjoining defendants from enforcing the citizenship
requirement set forth in section 111 of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act;
(c) Awarding plaintiffs their expenses, costs, fees, and
other disbursements associated with the filing and maintenance of
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d);
(d) Awarding such other equitable and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Dated: 1/17/02 Respectfully Submitted,
Mark D. Rosenbaum
Ben Wizner
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
By: ___________________________
Mark D. Rosenbaum
By: ___________________________
Ben Wizner