The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal
by donohoe on 2/2/2026, 10:48:10 PM
Comments
by: paxys
It's hilarious how transparent a money grab this entire thing is.<p>"You need to show a Real ID for security, otherwise how do we know you won't hijack the plane?"<p>"Well I don't have a Real ID."<p>"Ok then, give us $45 and you can go through."<p>So it was never about security at all then, was it?<p>And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
2/2/2026, 11:40:20 PM
by: rayiner
Saying that there is “no legal requirement to show an ID” is truthy but misleading. Federal law gives the TSA authority over “screening” passengers: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901</a> (“The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including United States mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles, that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate air transportation.”).<p>That means the TSA can do whatever it can get away with labeling “screening.” It doesn’t matter that Congress didn’t specifically require showing IDs. That’s just one possible way of doing “screening.” Under the statute, the TSA is not required to do screening any particular way.
2/3/2026, 12:46:59 AM
by: thyrsus
Explain to me how qualified immunity is better than any ill it is supposed to address? And how is it that if you sue the government and win, then the judgement doesn't automatically award reasonable legal fees?
2/2/2026, 11:48:59 PM
by: yalogin
TSA has been an elaborate ruse to create a recurring revenue service program called “clear” and tsa-pre. Of course they are also able to monetize the ruse itself.
2/3/2026, 1:50:53 AM
by: ggm
If true, unlikely to help the working poor flying (or attempting to fly) because recourse to courts here is in the realms of the rich or benificent.<p>So, Frommers should fund a test case.
2/2/2026, 10:57:12 PM
by: ibejoeb
It's a real head-scratcher that the cohort that claims government ID is unattainable for some people hasn't taken up this issue. "Real ID" isn't something that is just delivered to you. Now we're going to charge money <i>not</i> to have it?
2/2/2026, 11:47:53 PM
by: StillBored
Frankly, the entire agency is unconstitutional. From the fact that they basically exist under a general warrant issued by the supreme court (although they invented a new catagory, "administrative search", which doesn't fundamentally change what it is) to the restrictions on the right to assembly requires free travel as well, although the current legal underpinnings are "creative", the 10th admendment which grants all non enumerated powers to the states, to the restrictions on bearing arms on the plane and a half dozen other parts. About the only part they might be able to stand on is commerce again, but then so much travel in the larger states remains in the state (ex dallas/houston, san fran/LA) requiring seperate security zones.<p>Bush should have _NEVER_ nationalized them, at least as a private entity they existed in a sorta gray area. Now they are clearly violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments.<p>And the solution isn't another bullshit supreme court amendment of the absolutist language in the bill of rights/etc but to actually have a national discussion about how much safety the are providing vs their cost, intrusiveness, etc and actually find enough common ground to amend the constitution. Until then they are unconstitutional and the court makes a mockery of itself and delgitimizes then entire apparatus in any ruling that doesn't tear it down as such.<p>And before anyone says "oh thats hard", i'm going to argue no its not, pretty much 100% of the country could agree to amend the 2nd to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons, there isn't any reason that it shouldn't be possible to get 70% support behind some simple restrictions "aka no guns, detected via a metal detector on public airplanes" passed. But then the agency wouldn't be given free run to do whatever the political appointee of the week feels like. But there are "powers" that are more interested in tracking you, selling worthless scanners, and creating jobs programs for people who enjoy feeling people up and picking through their dirty underwear.
2/3/2026, 12:26:30 AM
by: rbbydotdev
> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.
2/2/2026, 11:14:00 PM
by: AbrahamParangi
It's definitely just to get people to fly with a valid ID without ambushing the enormous number of people who have been living under a rock and don't realize they need a real ID. Otherwise they'll have a dozen or so people freaking out at the airport every single day for years.
2/3/2026, 12:45:37 AM
by: tedggh
It seems to me it is more of a penalty to encourage people to get Real ID while still allowing them to fly. I would imagine most air travelers have some kind of real id, passport, actual real id DL or global entry card. Very few people cannot get real id due to name inconsistency issues, but most are just lazy. Allowing them to fly for $45 seems reasonable to me, particularly if they cause delays at security.
2/3/2026, 12:28:04 AM
by: bb88
I once told TSA this: "I lost my Driver's License, and the state won't issue another for a month maybe. I understand there's an extra screening pat-down."<p>Before entering the porno scanners I put everything in my pockets on the scanner belt, and they didn't bother to pat me down. YMMV.
2/3/2026, 12:31:23 AM
by: cmiles8
You have the right to try and fly without an ID. The airlines also have the right to tell you to buzz off and get lost and the airport operator has the right to decide they don’t want you in the building and trespass you if you don’t scram.
2/2/2026, 11:29:49 PM
by: aboardRat4
In the USA it is possible to fly without an ID?
2/2/2026, 11:57:37 PM
by: micromacrofoot
My procrastination is starting to turn into a political stance. This isn't the first time it's happened.
2/3/2026, 12:35:44 AM
by: ChrisArchitect
Previously:<p><i>US air travelers without REAL IDs will be charged a $45 fee</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46115731</a><p><i>TSA's New $45 Fee at U.S. Airports Unfairly Punishes Families in the Fine Print</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46138101</a>
2/2/2026, 11:14:20 PM
by: TacticalCoder
> As described by Clinton’s counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this idea was conceived overnight as a way to show that the government was “doing something” in response to a plane crash that turned out to have been caused by a faulty fuel tank, not terrorism.<p>To be honest the worry about terrorists hijacking planes under Clinton proved to be quite prescient only a few years later.
2/2/2026, 11:49:58 PM
by: mmooss
It's an interesting argument. Is there a highly-credible, authoritative source? Maybe someone like the EFF or ACLU? There are lots of ideas online about the law, of varying credibility, and I'd hesitate to risk a lawsuit over Internet advice.
2/2/2026, 11:36:09 PM
by: calmbonsai
I hadn't heard about this, but this is blatantly against the explicit and implied "right to travel" that's baked into the 14th amendment and had over a 156 years of precedence since Paul vs. Virginia.
2/2/2026, 11:59:11 PM
by: timnetworks
of course none of this nonsense applies to those than can afford private travel
2/3/2026, 1:29:15 AM
by: dTal
45 dollars? Form 415? Maybe I'm jumping at shadows but this smells like a Trump dogwhistle.
2/3/2026, 12:14:51 AM
by: dmitrygr
I've flown without ID twice. Once because I lost my ID, once to prove to a friend that it could be done. This fee will fail for the same reason that flying without ID works at all - the law is quite clear on it.
2/2/2026, 11:34:21 PM
by: 46493168
Where does the fee money go then? Into 45’s pocket?
2/2/2026, 11:43:49 PM