Gilmore claimed that being required to show identification in order to travel by plane inside the country is an unconstitutional restriction of his rights to travel, to petition government, and to speak anonymously.

Gilmore also complained about being subject to "secret law," when the airlines and government refused to show the directive under which they were requesting ID.

The district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Gilmore,[2] holding there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search.

While the court saw the Security Directive[clarification needed] in camera, the public still has not been permitted to see the text.

[3] As a result, the case is precedent for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.