The story that's been developing between John Gilmore and John Ashcroft ("the Johns") grows ever better. Even though it's proved biased in the past, PapersPlease.org presents the facts of the case:

On July 4, 2002, John Gilmore went to Oakland International Airport. He had a ticket in his own name with Southwest Airlines to Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The purpose of his trip was to petition the government for redress of grievances -- specifically, the requirement for airline travelers to provide identification.

John politely refused to show his ID and was not allowed to fly.

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

[. . .]

At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them. These secret directives, issued by the Transportation Security Administration, are revised as often as weekly, and are transmitted orally rather than in writing. To make things even more confusing, these orally transmitted secret rules change depending on the airport.

Gilmore is quite the libertarian and, in fact, filed an amicus brief in the Hiibel case.

PapersPlease has this mostly right. Apparently there are "secret directives" and Gilmore argues that if the public has no ability to see them, how could the public possibly be informed of the law? BoingBoing reports today that DOJ tried to file a "secret brief" in the case, meaning that no one but the judges would be allowed to see it. As expected, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals laid the smack-down on DOJ, denying its motion to make its brief secret.

If this thing goes to the Supreme Court, my money is definitely on Gilmore.