Going through airport security is never fun, but it can be particularly difficult for transgender people. In addition to universal annoyances (did you remember to take off your shoes?) transgender people may not have identification documents that match who they are. Many airlines require ticket holders to select “male” or “female” when purchasing a ticket, something that may conflict with identity documents from the growing number of states that allow an ‘X’ gender marker on things like driver’s licenses. Finally, the “advanced imaging technology” body scanners — the ones that require you to hold your arms above your head — require TSA agents to select either a “male” or “female” scan, something that regularly results in additional and invasive searches for transgender travelers.

Fortunately, to mark 2022’s Transgender Day of Visibility, the Department of Homeland Security has announced a number of changes to make traveling while trans a little bit easier. These announcements are part of a larger push from the Biden administration to “advance equality and visibility for transgender Americans.” Here are four key things to know about the TSA announcements:

The TSA will be replacing current “Advanced Imaging Technology” scanners — which require the operator to select a “male” or “female” scanning setting — with technology that will not be based on gender. Here’s how transgender model, actor, and public speaker Rosalynne Montoya described the current scanners:

“I definitely am not super comfortable going through TSA because I pretty much always set off the scanners as having some sort of ‘anomaly.’ I don’t feel safe. I don’t expect TSA agents to have my best interests at heart. I’ve been sexually assaulted, groped, grabbed, forced to remove my clothing [at TSA checkpoints]. I remember those times every time I go through TSA.”

The TSA stated that the new scanning technology will “advance civil rights and improve the customer experience of travelers who previously have been required to undergo additional screening due to alarms in sensitive areas,” with a rollout coming later this year.

Many airlines require passengers to select “male” or “female” when purchasing tickets. The TSA is working with airlines to expand the use of “X” gender markers, and to allow passengers to self-select the “X” gender marker when purchasing tickets.

Including an “X” gender marker on identity documents and records provides an accurate option for people who are non-binary, intersex, or another gender. Every person should be able to select a marker, whether M, F, or X, that feels safest and most appropriate for them to move through the world.

It can be a nightmare to get through airport security with an ID that doesn’t match your gender presentation. At best, having an ID that doesn’t match your presentation can cause confusion and slow things down. At worst, it can result in harassment and missed flights. TSA is updating its policies and guidelines to “remove gender considerations” when verifying ID at an airport, which should reduce delays and make things easier for trans travelers.

TSA PreCheck, a voluntary program that people can enroll in to reduce time spent at airport security checkpoints, does not currently offer an “X” gender marker. TSA is changing this, and will add an “X” gender marker to its Trusted Traveler and TSA PreCheck programs. “X” gender markers will also be available on U.S. passports beginning on April 11, 2022.

While TSA’s new scanning technology is supposed to be less likely to flag transgender flyers as potential security threats, TSA PreCheck allows participants to go through a simple metal detector, rather than the full-body scanners. As Rev. Yunus Coldman, an interfaith minister and a New York-based transgender man, said, “TSA PreCheck has saved so many trans people from bulls***. You don’t have to go through body scanners. You don’t have to take your shoes or belt off.”

These changes should make life easier for transgender travelers, but the devil is in the details. Only time will tell if these changes live up to TSA’s promises. In the meantime, TSA has updated its website for transgender passengers, with information about the changes listed above and how to contact TSA if you have any questions.

If you experience mistreatment by the TSA, you can fill out a complaint form online. You can also let the ACLU know about your experiences.

This op-ed was originally published by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

John Hodges supports himself on a limited income with his power washing business. He is also experiencing homelessness. But like thousands of others in Florida, Hodges is sitting in jail because he can’t afford his unconstitutionally set bail.

In August 2021, Hodges was arrested and charged with stealing a bicycle from a porch. Legally, he is innocent. We don’t know yet what actually happened – that is what a trial is for. In practice, however, Florida’s bail system has already taken Hodges’ freedom away.

Hodges’ bail was set at $5,500. He could afford $1,000. He proposed the court substitute the $5,500 requirement for this lower amount and add other conditions – pretrial supervision, alcohol and drug testing, and attendance at substance abuse meetings. These conditions would equally satisfy any concerns and facilitate his release. But the court denied Hodges' request and kept his bail at $5,500 without explanation or serious consideration of his proposal.

This is an unconstitutional practice.

Florida has high pretrial detention populations: currently there is a daily average of nearly 34,000 people sitting in Florida jails awaiting their day in court. This drives overcrowding in many county jails, and those who are eligible for release but are too poor to afford cash bail account for a significant amount of the jail population. More than 12,000 presumptively innocent people will be locked up tonight and kept away from their families because they cannot afford to pay their bail. 

The practice of setting unaffordable cash bail often violates the Constitution. It is expensive to taxpayers, ignores effective, community-based alternatives and wreaks havoc on the lives of individuals and families.

Monetary bail began as a system to ensure people returned to court as their case progressed. However, it has morphed into unjust and unconstitutional wealth-based incarceration without due process.

Last November, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Hodges and 10 others after judges in Manatee and Sarasota counties set unaffordable cash bail amounts –even though these judges were explicitly made aware that the individuals were unable to pay.

The class action lawsuit was dismissed by a Florida court on technical grounds. The ACLU of Florida refiled the 11 cases individually. The Florida court did not provide relief in any of the cases, and it offered no explanation as to why the unaffordable amount was the only bail figure that would work. Still, the ACLU of Florida continues to fight for Hodges and others who languish behind bars simply because they can't afford their cash bail.

In the case of Hodges and many others, prosecutors did not perform their constitutional duty to establish reasons why an affordable bail, coupled with pretrial supervision or other nonmonetary conditions, could not clearly substitute for a cash bail to serve the state’s legitimate pretrial interests. They ignored solutions that would benefit everyone.

Our Constitution’s due process clause protects people from the unnecessary deprivation of rights, including pretrial detention. And Florida’s pretrial detention statute provides a way to detain people who are perceived to be particularly dangerous. Yet prosecutors rarely employ this tool. They simply request an unaffordable bail amount with the intent that it will accomplish the same detention outcome – or they are recklessly ignoring the fact that it may do so.

In Manatee and Sarasota counties, the average cost of jailing an individual is about $90 a day. With at least 500 people being held in pretrial detention simply because they cannot afford bail, taxpayers are spending $45,000 every day to warehouse people who have not been convicted of a crime. The numbers are significantly higher in other counties that detain more people or have higher incarceration costs.

Alternatives to unaffordable bail are plenty. Court reminders, travel restrictions, pretrial supervision, drug treatment and, when necessary, home detention work well and keep folks out of jail.

Meanwhile, the Bail Project – a national nonprofit organization that pays bails for those who can't afford to do so – is single-handedly proving that personal financial stakes are unnecessary. Those who have their bails paid still appear for their court dates, and they act in a law-abiding manner as they wait to do so. The only difference is that they are able to reunite with their families and maintain employment while awaiting their day in court – thanks to the Bail Project's commitment to paying bails for those who cannot afford them.

The decision to set unaffordable bail has devastating effects. For many, unaffordable bail means losing their jobs, housing and children. But because most people who are detained will ultimately be released to our community, access to employment, housing and loved ones are essential to guard against recidivism.

In addition, prosecutors often use detention to secure pleas with lengthy sentences. Some people plead guilty just to get out of jail, and their families pay the price. In some cases, unaffordable bail leads to years of horrific abuse, irreparable harm and trauma – and right now it is also leading to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19. We have witnessed too many horror stories.

Wealth-based incarceration without due process is unjust, unfair and un-American. That's why as our nation grapples with conversations about criminal justice reform, safety and the treatment of disadvantaged people, Florida should end its reliance on unconstitutional bail practices and ensure that all people have due process under the law.

​​This week, the Centers for Disease Control will decide whether or not to finally end a policy that has shut down asylum at the Southern border for two years. The Trump White House reportedly pushed the CDC to use its public health authorities — Title 42 — to enact the shutdown, over CDC experts’ objections. Since taking office, the Biden administration has kept the policy in place, despite increasing condemnation from public health officials as well as the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions across the country.

Under the Title 42 order, the Biden administration has repeatedly denied people fleeing violence and persecution the right to seek protection and has sent them directly back into harm’s way, subjecting Black and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers to particular risks. Human rights organizations have documented nearly ten thousand heartbreaking instances of people being kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, and murdered as a result.

These mass expulsions to danger fly in the face of American values and U.S. legal commitments. They are also an affront to the basic humanity of people seeking safe sanctuary and lack a public health rationale.

In early March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court issued a unanimous ruling in a case brought by the ACLU and partners challenging Title 42 expulsions. The filings detail horrific experiences suffered by people seeking protection, including the account of a Honduran woman who was expelled with her young daughter by border officials at night. After she exited the international bridge into Reynosa, several armed men grabbed her and covered her face with a black hat and forced her into a car. While being held, she was raped multiple times as she begged her captors not to harm her daughter. Tragically, their experience mirrors those of countless other people expelled under Title 42.

The D.C. Appeals Court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42, and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution. The court also questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”

Though Title 42 has been misused as a border enforcement tool, it actually falls under the authority of the CDC. Senior Trump officials reportedly pushed the agency to implement the policy, and Biden White House officials are thought to be far more involved in decisions over its continuation than they let on.

To date, no career CDC scientist has publicly expressed public support for the use of Title 42 — we have heard only from political appointees.

The CDC recently issued an order terminating Title 42 as it applies to children who arrive at the border alone. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky correctly found no public health justification for expelling unaccompanied children from the U.S.

Dr. Walensky said the CDC will complete a new review of Title 42 by March 30 to decide whether to end it entirely. Public health experts have demanded it does so. Indeed, the core of Dr. Walensky’s analysis — that we have entered a “different phase” of the pandemic — applies equally to unaccompanied children, families, and adults. She cited widespread vaccination and infection-induced immunity, the availability of other mitigation tools (such as testing and treatments), dramatically higher vaccination rates around the world, and new plans to detect and quickly combat future variants. Accordingly, COVID-related restrictions have been lifted in most U.S. jurisdictions, including border communities.

Keeping this extraordinary policy in place as so many other restrictions are eliminated would lay bare the truth of Title 42: It was always a way to illegally restrict access to asylum, and not about public health.

Our government has the tools it needs to safely screen people at the border, as our laws require, to determine whether they qualify for asylum or other humanitarian protections. The CDC should resist any political interference from the White House and end Title 42 in its entirety.

If the agency continues a policy that lacks a public health rationale, it will signal to the American public that the CDC cannot maintain scientific integrity and independence in the face of political pressure and further erode trust in the agency. It also risks that its legacy will be sending vulnerable people into danger, rather than saving lives as it was created to do.