[foldspace]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


ANON,
a Delaware nonprofit corporation dedicated to the protection and advancement of the fundamental constitutional right to travel for United States citizens in the modern era of commercial aviation.

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
in its official institutional capacity as the legislative branch of the federal government,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:26-cv-XXXX (XXX)


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



INTRODUCTION

This action confronts an escalating constitutional emergency of historic proportions:

Congress’s deliberate refusal to appropriate funds for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) since February 13, 2026,
has deliberately engineered a nationwide collapse of the nation’s air-travel infrastructure.

The predominant — and for millions the only practical — means of interstate and international movement.

The shutdown has produced not mere inconvenience but a systemic, severe, and continuing deprivation
that seriously impedes and, for vast numbers of citizens, totally prevents the exercise of the fundamental right to travel.

It shuts down the primary arteries of interstate commerce,
and subjects millions of law-abiding U.S. citizens to prolonged constructive detention in airports.

Conditions that shock the conscience and have no precedent in American history.



JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The claims arise under the U.S. Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause,
the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses,
Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article I Commerce Clause, and the Fourth Amendment.

Declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

Venue lies in the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)
because Defendant is an institutional entity headquartered here
and the appropriation decisions at issue occurred here.



PARTIES

Plaintiff ANON is a Delaware nonprofit corporation with members and operations throughout the United States.

Its core mission is the vindication of the constitutional right to travel in the 21st century.

ANON and its members — including families stranded for days,
patients denied life-saving medical care,
workers facing termination,
and citizens separated from loved ones — are suffering immediate, irreparable, and ongoing injury.

Defendant United States Congress is the legislative branch
whose refusal to enact appropriations has directly caused the constitutional deprivations at issue.



FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

(1: Since February 13, 2026, Congress has permitted core DHS/TSA and FAA funding to lapse amid partisan disputes.)

Triggering the Anti-Deficiency Act shutdown of non-essential operations
while essential security and air-traffic functions have collapsed under unsustainable strain.

(2: The consequences are catastrophic and rapidly worsening.)

As of March 18, 2026, average TSA checkpoint wait times exceed three to five hours at major hubs
(with some reports exceeding eight hours).

Unscheduled absences among TSA officers have spiked to levels far exceeding those seen in the 2018–2019 shutdown
(when call-outs reached 10% and caused widespread line closures).

Over 50,000 flights have been canceled or indefinitely delayed nationwide.

FAA controller staffing shortages have produced ground stops,
tarmac delays exceeding regulatory limits,
and the temporary closure of multiple smaller airports.

TSA and FAA officials have publicly warned of imminent nationwide operational failures.

(3: Law-abiding U.S. citizens attempting interstate or international travel have been physically prevented from boarding flights
and forced to remain in terminals for hours or days on end.)

Sleeping on floors, without access to food, medication, or sanitation.

Specific examples include:

→ families with infants stranded for 36+ hours missing connecting flights.

→ elderly passengers and those with chronic conditions (diabetes, heart disease, dialysis patients)
suffering medical emergencies in terminals.

→ business travelers and workers facing permanent job loss.

→ individuals missing critical medical procedures, funerals, or child custody proceedings.

These conditions constitute prolonged constructive detention without process or justification.

(4: The economic and commercial devastation is unprecedented.)

The shutdown has already cost the travel economy billions of dollars per week,
with airlines reporting mass cancellations, crew timeouts, supply-chain breakdowns,
and secondary effects on interstate commerce (goods, services, and labor mobility).

Surveys indicate that 60% of Americans have canceled or postponed air travel,
effectively shutting down the dominant channel of 21st-century interstate commerce.

(5: These burdens “seriously burden” and, in countless cases, “totally prevent” the exercise of the right to travel.)

Airports have been transformed into federal detention zones,
stranding travelers against their will in a manner that exceeds any legitimate interest and shocks the conscience.

The crisis escalates daily, with spring-break and summer travel seasons now imperiled.



CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(A: Violation of the Fundamental Right to Travel – Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (Strict Scrutiny))

(1: The right to travel is a fundamental component of “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.)

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-27 (1958).

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964).

Califano v. Aznavorian (analogous burdens).

Any governmental action that seriously burdens this right triggers strict scrutiny.

(2: The shutdown is an arbitrary, indiscriminate, and severe deprivation caused by legislative inaction.)

It imposes a massive “chilling effect” and burdens far exceeding incidental regulations previously upheld.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31 (1969).

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)
(durational barriers to essential services burden travel and trigger strict scrutiny).

The partisan funding dispute supplies no compelling interest sufficient to justify nullifying air travel for millions.


(B: Violation of the Right to Travel Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause)

(1: The right to travel among the states is a fundamental privilege of national citizenship rooted in the structural design of the Union.)

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498-502 (1999)
(three components: enter/leave states, welcome visitor status, equal treatment upon residency).

Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868).

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1868).

Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1870).

(2: Modern commercial aviation is the functional equivalent of the 19th-century highways, rivers, and instrumentalities protected by these precedents.)

By allowing the sole viable national travel infrastructure to collapse,
Congress has erected a barrier far more onerous than any state residency rule, exit tax, or durational requirement ever sustained.

The shutdown affirmatively prevents ingress and egress
in violation of the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses.


(C: Unlawful Shutdown of Interstate Commerce – Article I Commerce Clause)

(1: Congress possesses plenary power over interstate commerce
but may not exercise (or refuse to support) that power in a manner that affirmatively shuts down its primary channels.)

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).

Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960)
(interstate passenger movement as protected commerce).

(2: Air travel constitutes the dominant channel of 21st-century interstate commerce.)

The shutdown has imposed an unprecedented federal embargo on movement and commerce
— far beyond the outer bounds recognized in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

The partisan stalemate supplies no justification.


(D: Temporary Deprivation of Liberty – Constructive Detention Without Due Process (Fifth Amendment))

(1: The Fifth Amendment prohibits any deprivation of liberty without due process.)

When citizens are physically prevented from boarding flights
and forced to remain in airports for extended periods,
they are subjected to temporary but severe constructive imprisonment.

(2: This violates the core liberty principles articulated in Kent v. Dulles
and Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953).)

And is directly analogous to precedents condemning prolonged or excessive detention.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)
(prolonged detention requires individualized justification).

The shutdown has transformed airports into federal detention zones
without process or justification — precisely the arbitrary restraint the Due Process Clause forbids.


(E: Unreasonable Seizure – Fourth Amendment (Constructive Detention of the Person))

(1: The systemic stranding of travelers at security checkpoints and gates constitutes an unreasonable seizure of the person.)

The Fourth Amendment prohibits seizures that exceed the narrow limits of investigative stops.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
(cannot prolong seizure without independent justification).

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
(general crime-control or administrative seizures invalid).

(2: Here, the seizure is neither brief nor investigative.)

It is indefinite, nationwide, and caused solely by congressional inaction.

No probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or even checkpoint-specific rationale
justifies detaining millions of citizens in terminals.

This application of Fourth Amendment doctrine is compelled
by the severity of the burden on the overlapping fundamental right to travel.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ANON respectfully prays that this Court:

(A: Declare the ongoing DHS/TSA funding lapse, as applied to air-travel infrastructure,
unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Article IV,
Article I Commerce Clause, and Fourth Amendment.)

(B: Issue immediate temporary and permanent injunctive relief compelling Defendant
to enact emergency appropriations restoring full TSA and FAA funding,
or, in the alternative, directing the use of all available constitutional mechanisms
to maintain uninterrupted operations pending legislative action.)

(C: Grant expedited consideration and a temporary restraining order within 24 hours
to prevent further irreparable harm during the current travel crisis.)

(D: Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.)

(E: Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.)


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all triable issues of fact.


Dated: March 18, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [ Counsel]
Counsel for Plaintiff ANON



REFERENCES

No.	Case Name	Citation
1	Kent v. Dulles	357 U.S. 116 (1958)
2	Aptheker v. Secretary of State	378 U.S. 500 (1964)
3	Saenz v. Roe	526 U.S. 489 (1999)
4	Shapiro v. Thompson	394 U.S. 618 (1969)
5	Dunn v. Blumstein	405 U.S. 330 (1972)
6	Crandall v. Nevada	73 U.S. 35 (1868)
7	United States v. Guest	383 U.S. 745 (1966)
8	Edwards v. California	314 U.S. 160 (1941)
9	Gibbons v. Ogden	22 U.S. 1 (1824)
10	United States v. Lopez	514 U.S. 549 (1995)
11	Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei	345 U.S. 206 (1953)
12	Zadvydas v. Davis	533 U.S. 678 (2001)
13	United States v. Place	462 U.S. 696 (1983)
14	Terry v. Ohio	392 U.S. 1 (1968)
15	Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County	415 U.S. 250 (1974)
16	Paul v. Virginia	75 U.S. 168 (1868)
17	Ward v. Maryland	79 U.S. 418 (1870)
18	Boynton v. Virginia	364 U.S. 454 (1960)
19	United States v. Montoya de Hernandez	473 U.S. 531 (1985)
20	Rodriguez v. United States	575 U.S. 348 (2015)
21	City of Indianapolis v. Edmond	531 U.S. 32 (2000)

● All citations to official U.S. Reports.

● Liberally construed to apply to modern aviation, systemic funding-induced burdens,
prolonged airport detention, and interstate commerce paralysis.

● Consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive that constitutional rights evolve
to meet contemporary conditions — see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. at 501.



This Complaint strengthens the factual record
with concrete, escalating harms drawn from the ongoing crisis.

It incorporates additional landmark precedents liberally applied to the modern context.

It presents the strongest possible novel theory grounded in the most expansive
yet faithful reading of existing law.

Immediate judicial intervention is required to restore the constitutional right to travel
in the age of airlines.

[lyby]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANON,
a Delaware nonprofit corporation dedicated to the protection and advancement of the fundamental constitutional right to travel for United States citizens in the modern era of commercial aviation.

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
in its official institutional capacity as the legislative branch of the federal government,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:26-cv-XXXX (XXX)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

**************************************

Just, WOW!

Why is only part of the Case No. shown?

[WildHighlander57]

Where did you find this?