PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 13, 2016
Transportation Security and Redress Act or TSARA
This bill grants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and certain other U.S. courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review any claims against the United States or a federal agency arising out of a decision to delay or prohibit a person from boarding a commercial aircraft because that person has been identified as a threat by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or the Terrorist Screening Center.
A petition for review may be filed by any person who challenges a final administrative redress decision by the TSA to delay or prohibit a person from boarding a commercial aircraft because identified as a threat. No petition may be filed until the person filing has exhausted the administrative redress process.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The court of appeals shall decide any petition for review based only on the administrative record submitted by the United States which shall consist of the information the United States relied upon in support of the final decision under review, as well as any information the petitioner has submitted pursuant to the administrative redress process.
The court shall uphold a final decision issued pursuant to such process by the TSA unless such decision was:
arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitation, or short of statutory right;
lacking substantial support in the administrative record taken as a whole, including in the classified information submitted to the court; or
not in accord with procedures required by law.
A decision made by a court of appeals under this bill may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
People & committees
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX-4] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4930 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4930 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4930 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4930 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.