A Transportation Security Administration enforcement case stemming from an incident at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is raising broader concerns about how TSA handles allegations involving bodily searches, medical accommodations, retaliation, and the right to a hearing—particularly when those allegations include claims of sexual and physical assault.
The case, TSA Case No. 2024AUS0208, is now pending before a federal administrative law judge after TSA moved to dismiss the traveler’s request for a formal hearing on procedural grounds. The agency’s position has been advanced by Kim Garcia, a Dallas-based TSA Senior Counsel who represents the federal government in civil enforcement matters involving Texas airports.
At issue is whether the case will be resolved on its merits—or disposed of based on a contested deadline, without testimony, cross-examination, or review of key evidence.
An Austin Incident With Serious Allegations
According to sworn filings in the case, the traveler was subjected to a pat-down screening at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and was escorted into a private screening room without being offered the option of a public screening, a choice required by TSA policy absent a specific safety justification.
After entering the private screening room, the traveler states that he disclosed a medical injury affecting his groin and requested accommodation consistent with TSA procedures governing medically sensitive screenings. He maintains that despite this disclosure, officers proceeded with a sensitive-area pat-down without following required procedural safeguards.
TSA policy permits contact with a passenger’s groin area only when conducted strictly according to established steps and accommodations. The traveler states that once officers deviated from those procedures, any contact with his crotch became non-consensual and outside the scope of lawful screening, and that he was sexually assaulted as a result. That allegation has not yet been examined in a formal hearing.
Alleged Assault After Expressing Intent to File a Complaint
In a separate but related allegation, the traveler states that after he expressed his intent to file a formal complaint about the screening, a TSA employee intentionally poked him in the chest after he had verbally requested not to be touched.
He characterizes that conduct as assault by contact under Texas law and states that he filed a police report documenting the incident. According to the traveler, the physical contact occurred in direct response to his stated intent to complain, a sequence he argues is significant in assessing both the use of force and the context in which it occurred.
Multiple Misconduct Complaints, Not a Single Dispute
The traveler further states that the incident did not involve a single employee or isolated conduct. According to his filings, five different TSA employees incurred formal complaints for misconduct arising from the same screening encounter.
Those complaints, he states, were:
Submitted timely Made in writing Evidence-based Properly documented
The traveler alleges that after he initiated complaints regarding TSA employees’ conduct, complaints were filed against him, which he characterizes as an effort to blunt or preempt scrutiny of the employees’ own behavior. Those agency complaints now form the basis of the civil penalty TSA is seeking to impose.
These competing complaints—one set alleging passenger misconduct, the other alleging employee misconduct—have not yet been tested through testimony or cross-examination.
A Dallas-Based Decision Over an Austin Incident
The enforcement action is being litigated by Garcia from Dallas, despite the incident occurring in Austin and involving a Texas resident traveling through a Texas airport.
Garcia conducted an informal conference in July, after which TSA issued a settlement proposal. The traveler rejected that proposal and reiterated his intent to proceed to a formal hearing if the matter was not dismissed.
According to filings, the informal conference did not include a substantive review of the traveler’s evidence. The traveler states that medical documentation he had previously submitted to investigators was not provided to Garcia, and that the conference ended before audio evidence contradicting the agency’s narrative could be reviewed.
Those evidentiary issues remain unresolved.
A Procedural Motion, Not a Merits Response
Rather than addressing the allegations involving bodily searches, denial of screening options, alleged sexual assault, alleged assault by contact, or the existence of multiple employee misconduct complaints, Garcia filed a motion asking the administrative law judge to dismiss the hearing request as untimely and to impose the civil penalty without a hearing.
The motion relies on TSA’s assertion that a final notice was properly served and that a 15-day deadline expired. The traveler disputes proper service and argues that inconsistent delivery methods, objections to electronic notice, continued agency communications, and the acceptance of the case into the adjudicatory system itself all weigh against dismissal.
Notably, the motion does not address whether TSA policy was followed during the Austin screening, whether medical accommodations were improperly denied, or whether the alleged sexual and physical assaults occurred.
Why the Case Matters for Texas Travelers
If the agency prevails on procedural grounds, the allegations involving bodily integrity, use of force, and alleged retaliation will never be examined on the record. If the administrative law judge allows the case to proceed, TSA may be required to defend its conduct through evidence, testimony, and cross-examination.
At stake is a question with real consequences for Texans passing through airports like Austin-Bergstrom: Will allegations of misconduct by government agents be resolved through evidence—or through technicalities?
Texas Reporter 