Maybe that has changed but when I applied for a Real ID in 2019 I had to bring all kinds of documentation including my original certified marriage and divorce decrees because my surname did not match my birth certificate. They looked at and made copies of everything.
I am in rural Pennsylvania for reference.
Not sure how it is handled currently but that was my experience.
That wasn’t my point. My point was
Just got my Real ID license in AZ at my first old person license renewal last month. They definitely looked at and scanned all the documents I brought - old driver’s license, passport, and bank statement. And charged an extra $25 for Real ID.
I’m still not convinced there’s any constitutional issue here. Why would ID requirements (showing legality of status in the US) to fly be a problem with the equal protection clause? Please spell out your argument a bit further for us.
I question this. Perhaps courts have ruled that the right to travel does not include air travel, but that does not seem reasonable. Other rights are not limited because of new technology.
Because SCOTUS has held the equal protection clause applies to all residents whether here legally or illegally. So for the Federal government to say that a resident (yes you don’t have to admit you reside in the US but let’s take the law on it’s face) needs a document that only a citizen or lawful resident can get. EXCEPT as others have noted they could use their foreign passport if they have one. Is that unreasonable though?
This is something that both SovCits and critics of SovCits mess up. The right to travel only refers to crossing state lines AND as a privilege and immunity only is guarantied to US citizens under the Constitution. This means that a state cannot put up impediments for you to travel/move into or out of their state.
This has never happened once in all my years of air travel and dealing with TSA agents.
NOT. ONCE.
Maybe? It’s often Republicans pushing back against universal government documentation. They’re the ones who blocked national ID cards. But maybe they’ve gotten onboard with the idea after going for voter identification.
The whole security apparatus built around airline travel is probably unconstitutional (or at least extraconstitutional), but as usual the limitations of strict federalism have been bypassed by clever sophistry. In the case of airline travel it’s done by having the airlines refuse service to people who don’t meet the requirements, but that refusal is mandated by the federal laws licensing commercial air travel. IOW the airlines as supposedly private businesses serve as the government’s catspaw.
Yes. And that’s what is unreasonable. Because the right to travel is not explicitly in the Constitution, it’s just a patchwork of laws. The federal and state governments shouldn’t be able to restrict movement by air more than by any other method.
The thing about air travel is that under pre-1920s laws property rights extended up to the Andromeda Galaxy; this would have made air travel effectively impossible. So airspace above a certain height was placed under federal regulation. Either the federal government has the authority to regulate air travel, or else get permission from every property owner on your route to pass over their land.
If I can rephrase your post: Yeah they violate your rights but the courts rulings are, “Fuck you!”
OK, I can get behind that analysis.
I’m sure with the overextension of the commerce clause, today that would be the rationale.
Courts have ruled that you can’t drive without a driver’s license. In many states, undocumented people can’t get a DL. I don’t see how airplane travel adds anything to the equation.
Sigh
Again right to travel is the right to cross state lines. It has nothing to do with travel within a state so driver’s licenses or not engaged in commerce has nothing to do with right to travel.
An airplane on the other hand does if you are crossing state lines, but the 14th Amendment only guaranties the right to travel to citizens.
It’s reasonable to license the operation of a dangerous vehicle. But one doesn’t need any identification to be a passenger in a car. Nor being a passenger on a bus, train, ferry, etc. Requiring an air passenger to have identification is different.
We could have all the safety and security on aircraft that we currently do, just without an identification requirement. The ID doesn’t prevent the carrying of dangerous devices; those are checked for directly.
Sophistry again: iirc the airlines are required to make you produce identification to allow you on the plane; travel itself is a different matter. The basic principle is “if you can fly by flapping your arms, go for it; otherwise, if you need to fly an aircraft through national airspace, here are the rules”. 
According to the US Dept of State there are 169,915,821 valid US passports as of 2024. That works out to be 51% of the population. That’s a larger number than 20 years ago but far less than the 76% of people in the UK who have a passport.
As was mentioned by another poster, many countries allow citizens living abroad to go to an embassy or consulate in the country where they reside to renew a passport. They likely had one when they entered the foreign country where they reside. Mexico and Guatemala are two such countries as are most European ones. It only took a few minutes of searching online to find this info.
You are correct there is a cost associated with getting a passport and documentation some may find difficult to obtain. In the US it costs $130 to get one. With it being valid for 10 years that works out to be $13 per annum. I don’t think it would be much more for other countries so even a “broke-ass Guatemalan family” could probably save up to get that done.
Sure, but if they go to a consulate, they could reveal that to that nation.
Because in many cases in certain states, they are trying to make things as difficult as possible to get that ID.
Which nation is likely not trying to stop minorities from voting, so the procedure may be cheaper and easier.
And why would they care?
Right.
I only had extra stuff done by TSA when I had been released from my detail early, had a ticket for 8PM, but now it was 2PM at the airport, so they nicely got me on an easier flight, but TSA checked me extra carefully, including devices that sniff out explosives.
I get that, but there’s nothing that says you have the right to avail yourself of any and all means of transportation. If they can get on a bus without showing ID then their right to travel is protected.
Additionally, I don’t think producing a valid ID is a constitutional block, since everyone (except some stateless people) have the ability to procure a passport which meets the requirements. I admit, that’s an assumption on my part, is it true in reality? Can an undocumented person still get a passport from their home country’s embassy while they are in the US?
If it’s not impossible for someone to get passport, even if it is difficult, I don’t see the restriction as violating the equal protection clause. It seems like you’d have a better argument saying that everyone needing identification of any sort to fly violates the right to travel.