Court Backs TSA in Asheville Airport Battery Lawsuit

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a ruling that a 2019 TSA pat-down search at Asheville Regional Airport was reasonable.

Updated on Oct. 20, 2026 in Sex Crimes

Bold flat-color editorial illustration showing a monolithic architectural security wall, evoking the institutional authority of federal court decisions. — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2019 TSA pat-down search at Asheville Regional Airport was legally reasonable. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Do you believe current airport security pat-down procedures strike a fair balance between safety and passenger rights?

A federal appeals court upheld a ruling in favor of the U.S. government regarding a battery claim stemming from a 2019 TSA pat-down. The court determined the search conducted at Asheville Regional Airport was objectively reasonable.

Why it matters

The decision underscores the legal standards protecting federal officers conducting security screenings when they act within their authority. It highlights the difficulty of proving civil battery claims against officials who perform standard security protocols.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an 11-page opinion affirming the judgment in favor of the U.S. following a bench trial in the Western District of North Carolina.

The players

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

This federal court holds jurisdiction over cases from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland.

Transportation Security Administration

This federal agency is responsible for the security of public transportation systems within the United States.

The details

The court found the TSA officer credible, relying on airport surveillance footage and testimony from TSA personnel and a training specialist. The plaintiff failed to prove the required elements of civil battery under North Carolina law, which include intent and harmful or offensive contact.

The TSA pat-down occurred at Asheville Regional Airport in 2019.
The Court of Appeals issued its final opinion on October 20, 2026.

Legal Context

This case follows established precedents regarding the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows individuals to sue the federal government under specific conditions. It reinforces existing standards for how courts evaluate the reasonableness of law enforcement and security conduct.

Travelers at the airport should be aware that standard security pat-downs conducted by trained personnel are legally considered reasonable within security protocols. This outcome confirms that documented security procedures remain protected under current federal law.

The takeaway

The court's decision confirms that security screenings at airports are held to specific legal standards regarding reasonableness. Travelers can expect that documented security procedures will continue to be upheld in federal courts.