You can sue the Transportation Security Administration, but the paths are narrower than most travelers expect. The main TSA lawsuits that have succeeded were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act after physical mistreatment at a checkpoint, and a growing line of appeals court decisions has finally made those cases possible. Constitutional claims against individual screeners have mostly been shut down. Everything else — body scanner challenges, no-fly list disputes, cash seizure fights, employee suits — lives in its own corner of the law with its own rules.
Here is what the major cases actually say, and what they mean if you are thinking about filing.
The Sovereign Immunity Wall and the FTCA Opening
The TSA is a federal agency, so it starts every lawsuit with sovereign immunity: you cannot sue it unless Congress has waived that protection. The primary waiver is the Federal Tort Claims Act, which lets you sue the federal government when its employees injure you or damage your property through conduct that would make a private employer liable under state law.1TSA.gov. Claims
That waiver has a big carve-out. Claims for intentional torts like assault and battery can only proceed if the government employee counts as an “investigative or law enforcement officer.” For years the government argued TSA screeners did not qualify — they were administrative employees, not cops — and used that argument to get pat-down and groping suits dismissed at the courthouse door.
That argument is now failing in most circuits that have looked at it.
Pellegrino, Osmon, and Leuthauser
The Third Circuit initially sided with the government in Pellegrino v. U.S. Transportation Security Administration (2018), ruling that screeners were not law enforcement officers and that sovereign immunity blocked intentional tort claims by passengers.2United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pellegrino v. U.S. Transportation Security Administration On rehearing, the court reversed itself and held that travelers could sue.
The Fourth Circuit followed in Osmon v. U.S. (2023), a case brought by Erin Osmon, who alleged a screener at Asheville Regional Airport fondled her genitals during a pat-down. The appeals court reversed the dismissal, holding that screeners are “empowered by law to execute searches” and therefore qualify as law enforcement officers under the FTCA. The court noted the statute “speaks in the disjunctive” and rejected the argument that only officers engaged in criminal law enforcement are covered.3Courthouse News Service. TSA Screeners on Hook for Federal Tort Claims The Eighth Circuit reached the same conclusion, and in 2023 the Ninth Circuit did too, in Leuthauser v. United States, letting a woman proceed with her suit over an unjustified groin search at a Las Vegas airport in 2019.4Institute for Justice. Victory: Court Rules TSA Agents Are Law Enforcement Agents, Can Be Sued for Unjustified Groin Search
If you were physically mistreated at a checkpoint in one of those circuits, an FTCA suit is now a live option. Outside those circuits, older precedent may still stand in the government’s way; the answer depends on where you fly through.
The Bivens Door Is Closed
Suing an individual TSA agent for a constitutional violation under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents is a different matter, and courts have said no. In Vanderklok v. United States (2017), Roger Vanderklok was arrested at Philadelphia International Airport after a TSA supervisor falsely told police he had threatened to bomb the airport. Surveillance footage cleared him and he was acquitted, but the Third Circuit held that extending Bivens to TSA screeners would “intrude into the domain of national security” and that creating new remedies in that context was a job for Congress.5United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Vanderklok v. United States
In practice, that means a federal constitutional damages claim against a screener personally is not going anywhere in most courts. FTCA is the route.
Body Scanners and Pat-Downs
Passengers who wanted to knock out the whole scanner-and-pat-down regime on Fourth Amendment grounds lost. The D.C. Circuit’s 2011 ruling in EPIC v. DHS upheld Advanced Imaging Technology scanners, holding that the government’s interest in detecting liquid and powder explosives outweighed the privacy intrusion, especially because passengers could opt out for a pat-down and the machines did not store identifiable images.6Lawfare. Whole Body Scanners, Fourth Amendment, and Administrative Procedures Act
EPIC won on a procedural point: the TSA had rolled out scanners without the notice-and-comment rulemaking the Administrative Procedure Act requires. The court ordered the agency to run the process “promptly.” After EPIC had to file a mandamus petition to force compliance, TSA published a proposed rule in March 2013 and a final rule in March 2016.7Federal Register. Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology8EPIC. EPIC v. DHS — Suspension of Body Scanner Program The final rule required Automatic Target Recognition software that replaces passenger-specific images with generic body outlines, and older backscatter machines were removed.
Jonathan Corbett brought several Eleventh Circuit challenges. In Corbett v. TSA (2014), the court denied his petition on the merits, holding that airport screening is a reasonable administrative search because preventing terrorism outweighs the privacy cost. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.9FindLaw. Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration A later challenge to mandatory scanner screening for flagged passengers was dismissed for lack of standing because Corbett could not show he had personally been forced through it.10United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Corbett v. TSA
The takeaway: challenging screening as a category has failed. Suing over a specific abuse during your own screening is where cases actually move.
No-Fly List Cases
If your problem is that you cannot board planes at all, the defendants are usually not the TSA. The No Fly List and the broader Terrorist Screening Database are run by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center and the Department of Homeland Security, and lawsuits target them. The cases still matter for anyone TSA turns away at the gate.
In Latif v. Holder, the ACLU sued in 2010 on behalf of 13 U.S. citizens, including four military veterans, who had been placed on the list. In June 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown in Oregon ruled that the government’s redress process — the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which typically returned a form letter that neither confirmed listing nor explained a denial of boarding — was “wholly ineffective” and violated Fifth Amendment due process. She ordered the government to tell the plaintiffs why they were listed and to let them challenge inclusion before a judge.11ACLU of Oregon. Court Rules No Fly List Process Unconstitutional and Must Be Reformed12ACLU of Northern California. Court Rules No Fly List Process Unconstitutional and Must Be Reformed
Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security showed how casually errors happen. Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian Stanford graduate student, was listed in 2004 because an FBI agent checked the wrong box on a nomination form. The government conceded it was a “monumental error” and that she “never belonged on the No Fly list at all.” After the first-ever bench trial on No Fly List constitutionality in December 2013, Judge William Alsup ordered the databases scrubbed and rejected the argument that existing remedies satisfied due process.13Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security14Lawfare. Game-Changing Ruling in No-Fly List Case
Tanzin v. Tanvir reached the Supreme Court on a different question: can Muslim men who allege FBI agents put them on the list to coerce them into spying on their communities sue those agents personally for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? In a unanimous 2020 decision, the Court said yes, holding that damages are a historically standard remedy for government overreach and are “specially fitted” to RFRA violations because injunctions do nothing about harms already suffered.15Supreme Court of the United States. Tanzin v. Tanvir The ruling opened a real pathway around Bivens for RFRA plaintiffs. On remand, though, the Second Circuit granted the individual FBI agents qualified immunity in October 2024, finding they had no reason to know the men’s refusal to cooperate was rooted in specifically religious belief.16Center for Constitutional Rights. Tanvir v. Tanzin
Airport Cash Seizure Suits
If TSA flagged cash in your carry-on and a DEA agent walked off with it, there is a pending class action you should know about. Brown v. TSA, filed by the Institute for Justice in January 2020 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, challenges the practice of seizing large amounts of cash from domestic air travelers without criminal charges. Lead plaintiff Rebecca Brown had $82,373 taken at Pittsburgh International Airport in August 2019; the money belonged to her retired railroad worker father, and no charges were filed.17Institute for Justice. DEA/TSA Forfeitures
The suit argues the TSA exceeds its statutory authority by detaining luggage based only on cash, which is not an aviation threat, and that both agencies violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing money without probable cause. The court denied the motion to dismiss in March 2021. The DEA ended its airport traveler interdiction program in January 2025, and a magistrate judge recommended dismissing the DEA claims as moot. The TSA claims remain active. After oral arguments on February 5, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kezia Taylor took the matter under advisement, with a Report and Recommendation expected for District Judge Marilyn Horan.18Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Travelers Lawsuit TSA DEA Money Seized19USA Today. Travelers Lawsuit TSA DEA Money Seized
TSA Employee Lawsuits
Workforce disputes are the most active TSA litigation right now. In May 2024, the American Federation of Government Employees and TSA management finalized an expanded seven-year collective bargaining agreement covering roughly 47,000 Transportation Security Officers at more than 400 airports. In February 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed the TSA to cancel that agreement, arguing collective bargaining was incompatible with the agency’s national security mission.20Federal News Network. Unions Sue DHS to Save TSA Collective Bargaining Contract
AFGE, the Communications Workers of America, and the Association of Flight Attendants sued in the Western District of Washington in March 2025, alleging the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. On June 2, 2025, Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the termination, finding the union was likely to succeed on the merits and that officers would suffer irreparable harm from losing their bargaining rights.21Federal News Network. Judge Orders TSA to Revive Collective Bargaining Agreement, for Now22Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Noem
In September 2025, Secretary Noem signed a new determination with more detailed justifications for ending the contract. When AFGE learned of it in December, it filed an emergency motion to enforce the injunction. On January 15, 2026, Judge Jamal Whitehead ruled the September determination “plainly” violated the existing order, warned that continued noncompliance could bring civil contempt, and ordered the TSA to notify all officers that the 2024 agreement remains binding and pending grievances must continue to be processed.23Courthouse News Service. Judge Denies Trump’s Second Bid to Scrap TSA Union Deal24Government Executive. Judge: TSA Plainly Violated Court Order in Renewed Union-Busting Push A bench trial is scheduled for September 2026.22Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Noem
A separate employee case is moving through the Eastern District of Virginia. In November 2025, Danielle Mittereder, a TSA officer at Dulles International Airport, sued over a February 2025 policy barring transgender officers from conducting passenger pat-downs, serving as witnesses for private screenings, demonstrating pat-downs in training, and using restrooms matching their gender identity. The policy effectively placed her on limited duty and blocked career advancement, since higher-level positions require pat-down proficiency.25LGBTQ Nation. Trans TSA Agent Sues Kristi Noem for Job Discrimination26The Hill. Lawsuit Challenges TSA’s Ban on Transgender Officers Conducting Pat-Downs Judge Michael Nachmanoff denied the government’s motion to dismiss in March 2026, and the discovery deadline was set for August 2026.27Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Mittereder v. Noem
How to File a Claim Against the TSA
If your case is about injury or damaged or lost property from screening, you do not start in court. You file a claim directly with the TSA under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The agency generally takes up to six months to investigate, and claims involving law enforcement conduct may take longer.1TSA.gov. Claims
Approval rates are low. Fewer than a third of property damage claims are fully approved, and only about 5% of personal injury claims receive full approval. Nearly half of all claims are denied outright, and claims are routinely denied when the TSA determines it never physically opened the bag.28Security Magazine. Passengers Struggle to Get Reimbursed for Damaged or Lost Luggage
If your claim is denied, or if six months pass with no resolution, you can then file suit in federal district court. That is the point at which the case law above — Osmon, Leuthauser, Pellegrino on the FTCA side, and Vanderklok on the Bivens side — starts to shape what you can actually win.