Arguments focused on whether TSA screening allows cash-based detentions that lead to DEA forfeitures without charges.
PITTSBURGH, PA — A federal magistrate judge on Thursday heard arguments in a class-action lawsuit that says Transportation Security Administration screeners unlawfully detained a woman carrying $82,000 at Pittsburgh International Airport in 2019, setting off a Drug Enforcement Administration seizure that took months to unwind.
The case centers on Rebecca Brown, who says her bag was flagged during security screening while she traveled from Pittsburgh to Boston in the summer of 2019. Brown and her father, retired railroad worker Terry Rolin, say the cash was his life savings that she planned to deposit for him. Plaintiffs argue TSA exceeded its transportation-safety mission by detaining Brown because she had cash, then summoning law enforcement, which seized the money even though no crime was charged. The government counters that officers followed training and acted within their authority. The hearing marked a key step as the court weighs competing motions that could decide parts of the case without a trial.
In court, lawyers for Brown and two other travelers asked the judge to rule that TSA’s practice of stopping people with “large amounts” of cash is unconstitutional. They said the agency’s own witnesses acknowledged that possessing cash does not threaten aviation security. “We think there is no dispute of material facts that the TSA unlawfully and unconstitutionally stops and seizes travelers with cash at the airport,” said Dan Alban, an attorney with the public-interest law firm representing the plaintiffs. Government attorneys urged the court to dismiss the claims, saying officers acted reasonably when X-ray images revealed stacks of currency and when the traveler’s answers raised concerns. They said screeners are trained to refer unusual findings to law enforcement and that DEA agents, not TSA, make seizure decisions.
According to filings described in court, Brown’s carry-on was diverted after passing through an X-ray machine at the main checkpoint. She was questioned by airport police and later by a DEA task force officer, who took the cash under civil forfeiture procedures. Brown was not arrested or charged. Her attorneys say the government returned the money after more than six months, concluding the funds were not tied to a crime. “I do think that this was unconstitutional, what the TSA did to me,” Brown said outside the courthouse. The government has not publicly discussed specific witness statements from the day of the stop, but argued that officers must be able to act on indicators that may point to trafficking or other criminal activity.
The dispute arrives amid broader scrutiny of airport cash seizures. Brown and Rolin first sued in 2020, and the case later added additional plaintiffs and class allegations. Civil liberties groups say such seizures often happen without arrests, leaving travelers to fight for their money through lengthy administrative proceedings. Federal officials have previously said referrals are based on indicators developed over years of interdiction work. In recent years, internal reviews have examined how often such encounters lead to prosecutions and whether guidelines are clear enough for screeners and agents. Brown’s lawyers say the record shows inconsistent definitions of what amounts count as “large,” and that some depositions cited amounts as low as a few hundred dollars if packaged in a certain way. The government disputes that characterization and says training materials emphasize behavior and context.
The judge hearing arguments, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kezia O.L. Taylor, said she would take the matter under advisement and later issue a report and recommendation to U.S. District Judge Marilyn Horan, who will make the final ruling on pending summary judgment motions. No timeline was given. At issue are claims under the Fourth Amendment and the statutory limits of TSA’s transportation security role. The plaintiffs want an order barring TSA from detaining travelers based solely on the presence of cash and requiring the agency to change training and policies. The government seeks judgment in its favor, arguing there was reasonable suspicion for the referral and that agents are shielded by qualified immunity for actions within their duties.
Public filings trace the 2019 encounter to Pittsburgh International Airport’s security lanes, where Brown was headed to a flight for Boston to help her father set up an account. Rolin, now retired, kept savings in cash. After the seizure, he and his daughter spent months navigating forfeiture paperwork before the funds were returned without a criminal case, according to their lawyers. The lawsuit argues those facts show a system that treats law-abiding travelers like suspects; government attorneys argue the same facts show agents investigating a possible crime while following procedures. Outside court, a small group of supporters stood in cold rain holding signs about civil forfeiture. “It’s been years, and people still ask why we had cash,” Rolin said in a brief interview. “It was my money. We just want this to stop happening to other people.”
Thursday’s hearing capped nearly six years of litigation and drew attention because the outcome could shape checkpoint routines nationwide. If the court limits when TSA may detain travelers based on currency alone, the agency may need to revise screening guidance and referral protocols. If the court sides with the government, referrals for unusual currency findings are likely to continue with few changes. For now, both sides await the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Any decision could be followed by further briefing or an appeal. The district judge’s ruling will determine whether the case proceeds to trial or ends at the summary-judgment stage.
Author note: Last updated February 6, 2026.