When a local governmental authority deliberately violates the Constitution out of self-aggrandizing posturing, they should suffer the costs. The TSA is a good example.
As a practical matter, the local government authority doesn't suffer the costs. Rather the citizens, who may have been oppressed by that government authority, get oppressed again by court ordered taxes to pay for the self appointed lawyer.
If the oppressed people feel the oppression enough to hire a lawyer, then they will be glad to pay for their liberation.
The problem I have with tort law in general is the paradigm that a doctor who earns his money by his service must pay for someone elses hurt, even if they are very marginally connected to that hurt.
Then after the case is over, the person who is hurt must pay the lawyer for his services.
So, does hurt trump work, or does work trump hurt? It seems that the answer is either, depending on which provides the most money to the lawyers.