The Ninth Circuit decided Gilmore v. Gonzales today. (This was the airport ID requirement/ secret law case that I blogged about before.) The Court upheld the ID requirement in a unanimous opinion by Judge Paez. The Court didn't seem particularly troubled by Gilmore's legal claims, either about the Fourth Amendment or the "secret law" Due Process claim.

  The Court held that the law did not violate Due Process because the law was not a criminal law and Gilmore was fully informed about the rule at issue:

Gilmore had actual notice of the identification policy. He alleged that several airline personnel asked him for identification and informed him of the identification policy. They told him that in order to board the aircraft, he must either present identification or be subject to a "selectee" search. He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines' ticketing counter that read "PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN." Although Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directive's classification as SSI, he was nonetheless accorded adequate notice given that he was informed of the policy and how to comply.

  Judge Paez also rejected Gilmore's Fourth Amendment claims relying on Ninth Circuit precedent. The gist of the analysis was that forcing Gilmore to submit to a search if he refused to provide an ID was reasonable, because it gave him a choice of options:

Gilmore had a meaningful choice. He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options.

  Thanks to Howard for the link.