RonRoberts
Junior Member
Article I, Section 12 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits laws from being passed that provide special priviledges to any citizen or any classs of citizen.
At SeaTac airport, passengers are queued awaiting their turn to be screened by the TSA. The airlines, as tenants of the airport, are allowed to manage the queues and in so doing they permit first class passengers to cut into the line in front of other passengers awaiting screening. All passengers use the same TSA facilities (there are no dedicated facilities or TSA staff paid for by the airlines to accomodate their first class passengers).
Similar to the decision rendered in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), I believe that the tenant (the airlines) and the Port Authority are so entwined and possibly entangled as to make the tenants use of Port Facilities subject to Article I, Section 12.
I believe that the Port has no compelling public interest to allow this special priviledge to exist, in fact I believe this special privilege offends the public interests embodied in law and tradition when you consider that alternative, non offending means of providing expedited access to TSA (the Registered Traveler Interoperability Pilot Program offered by TSA or the something similar to the Nexus lanes at the border crossings).
Given that the Port of Seattle has resources immensely beyond mine to litigate this issue, how do I fight city hall? Is there a reasonable cause of an injunction to force them to defend this practice?
At SeaTac airport, passengers are queued awaiting their turn to be screened by the TSA. The airlines, as tenants of the airport, are allowed to manage the queues and in so doing they permit first class passengers to cut into the line in front of other passengers awaiting screening. All passengers use the same TSA facilities (there are no dedicated facilities or TSA staff paid for by the airlines to accomodate their first class passengers).
Similar to the decision rendered in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), I believe that the tenant (the airlines) and the Port Authority are so entwined and possibly entangled as to make the tenants use of Port Facilities subject to Article I, Section 12.
I believe that the Port has no compelling public interest to allow this special priviledge to exist, in fact I believe this special privilege offends the public interests embodied in law and tradition when you consider that alternative, non offending means of providing expedited access to TSA (the Registered Traveler Interoperability Pilot Program offered by TSA or the something similar to the Nexus lanes at the border crossings).
Given that the Port of Seattle has resources immensely beyond mine to litigate this issue, how do I fight city hall? Is there a reasonable cause of an injunction to force them to defend this practice?