Is it an “open” meeting if you have to identify yourself, show ID, and/or pay a fee to attend?

That’s the question presented by today’s meeting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which is scheduled to be held in the “secure” area of the MSP airport reachable only by passing through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint.

As of February 1, 2026, this means individuals who want to attend a MAC meeting, including those who want to make public comments and those who just want to observe, must either (A) show ID credentials the TSA finds satisfactory or (B) pay the illegal $45 per person TSA Confirm.ID fee, answer whatever questions the TSA asks (based on records of the Accurint data broker), and be “allowed” by the TSA, in its unreviewable and arbitrary discretion, to enter the secure area of the airport. The MAC website says that “the MAC will cover this cost for up to three meetings”, but doesn’t say what will happen after that.

This is the first time — in Minnesota or any other state — that we have seen a demand for ID, a demand for a fee, a limit on the number of meetings that can be attended without a fee, or delegation of authority (authority the MAC itself would lack) to an independent third party to demand answers to questions or discretionary authority to decide who to allow to attend a meeting of a government body required by law to be open to the public.

Is any of this legal? We doubt it.

Rules for meetings of government decision-making bodies vary by state. The MAC is a Minnesota state agency whose members are appointed by the Governor.  The Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D) requires that all decision-making meetings of entities such as the MAC “must be open to the public”.

The Minnesota law doesn’t define what “open to the public” means, but we don’t think it includes any of these conditions and restrictions on attendance:

1. Requiring individuals to identify themselves (rather than attending anonymously, as they may wish to do if e.g.  they fear retaliation for attending or making public comments)
2. Requiring individuals to have or show ID credentials.
3. Requiring individuals to answer questions, including questions from a third party (in this case, the TSA).
4. Require individuals to pay a fee, or limiting the number of open meetings an individual may attend without paying a fee. (In this case, the fee is patently illegal, and having agreed to pay the fee on behalf of individuals attending MAC meetings, the MAC itself would have standing to challenge the fee.)
5. Granting a third party discretion to decide who will, and who will not, be allowed to attend a meeting. (The MAC website notes that “Verification is not guaranteed”, i.e that the TSA may choose not to allow an individual to pass through the checkpoint, even if they identify themselves verbally, pay the $45 fee or have it paid for them, and answer all of the TSA’s questions.)

None of this fits within any reasonable definition of “open to the public”.

Any member of an entity subject to the Minnesota Open Meetings Law who violates this law, including by attending a business meeting of an agency that isn’t open to the public, is personally liable for a $300 fine for each “occurrence”. They have to pay the fine themselves. The agency isn’t allowed to pay it for them. Under a “three strikes you’re out” provision of this law, any office-holder found guilty of three separate violations of the Open Meetings Law forfeits their office for the remainder of their term.

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for a full response to our request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for information about the basis for the MAC’s dubious claim that it lacks any authority to limit where in the airport Federal agents can go.

The last word we received is that we can expect a response to our public records request tomorrow — the day after the monthly MAC meeting today at which we and others might (if we were allowed by the TSA to attend) have asked questions of MAC members about the decision to give Federal agents free run of the airport without challenge.

When we posted our latest know-your-rights guide, we noted that it describes the rights of U.S. citizens if you are stopped and/or asked to identify yourself or show ID documents in certain circumstances: as a pedestrian, as a passenger in a car (not the driver), at home, or at the airport for a domestic flight.

Why these exceptions and limitations? What about drivers of motor vehicles, passengers on international flights, and people who aren’t U.S. citizens? Don’t they have rights too?

Yes, everyone has rights. But we limited our guide to circumstances in which we think the law is clearly established. In other situations, U.S. courts have been less clear, and in some cases these issues are the subject of ongoing litigation.

Here are some notes on these exceptions and limitations:

• Non-U.S. citizens: All people have rights, regardless of their citizenship. The Bill of Rights refers to the rights of “persons”, not citizens. The U.S. is a party to international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which according to the U.S. Constitution are the “supreme law of the land” just as much as the Constitution itself. Human rights, by definition, don’t depend on citizenship. But U.S. courts have often (wrongly, we think) interpreted some of the references to “persons” in the Bill of Rights and other U.S. laws as applying only to U.S. citizens and sometimes to permanent U.S. residents, not to all people. And U.S. courts have made it difficult or impossible to enforce rights recognized by the ICCPR, other international treaties, or customary international law through U.S. courts. In practice, non-U.S. citizens have fewer rights likely to be recognized by U.S. courts. U.S. law requires each non-U.S. citizen 18 or older in the U.S. for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government and “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession” their registration certificate. That law is of dubious validity, and hasn’t generally been enforced. It says non-U.S. citizens must “carry” their papers, but is silent on whether or when they are required to show those papers. Recent renewed enforcement of this law has prompted ongoing litigation in which these issues have been raised but not yet resolved. See  this know-your-rights brochure and these other resources from the American Immigration Lawyers Association for more on the rights of non-U.S. citizens.
• Drivers of motor vehicles: Unlike a mere passenger, the operator of a motor vehicle on a public road must have a license and must show their license to police if they are lawfully stopped. Case law on what constitutes a lawful traffic stop is complex and voluminous, with variations from state to state.  A key unresolved question is whether or in what circumstances ICE agents or other Federal law enforcement officers have the authority to make traffic stops or demand drivers licenses to investigate possible violations of state motor vehicle or traffic laws. In one recent ruling in an ongoing lawsuit in Minnesota, for example, the District Court Judge wrote that, “the Court declines to wade into whether federal immigration enforcement officers have any authority to enforce Minnesota’s traffic laws.”
• Passengers on international flights to and from the U.S.: Here again the case law is voluminous, complex, and silent on some key issues.  Federal agents have been allowed broad authority to stop and search anyone entering or leaving (or seeking to enter or leave) the U.S., whether at a land border or at an international airport or seaport.  Non-U.S. citizens can, in many cases, be denied entry to the U.S. if they decline to answer questions. But we can find no case law on the limits of the right of a U.S. citizen to remain silent in response to questions at the U.S. border or an international port of entry or exit, once they have declared their U.S. citizenship. (See more here about your rights at the airport for a domestic flight.)

We also noted in our guide that in some states, but not others, you might have to identify yourself verbally, if you have been legally stopped based on reasonable suspicion, but you don’t have to say anything else or show any papers. We think state “stop and ID” laws are unconstitutional. But whether “stop and ID” laws conflict with the 5th Amendment right to remain silent has not, so far as we can tell, been resolved by the courts.

Having the legal “right” to do something doesn’t mean that, in practice, you can do it without the police stopping you or retaliating against you for trying to exercise your rights. Retaliatory policing and retaliatory prosecutions are illegal but common.

Whether you are arrested, prosecuted, tortured, or shot by police, jailers, or prison guards may depend on the color of your skin,  your accent, what neighborhood you are in, whether you are wearing a hijab or other indicia of faith or ethnicity, or other aspects of your appearance and the situation, rather than on whether you are breaking the law.

Different people face different risks in trying to exercise their rights. Many of these risks are not ones individuals can choose whether to take. You are unavoidably “at risk”, to a greater or lesser degree, whether or not you chose to take additional risks. The law won’t always protect you. But neither will complying with the law always protect you.

One thing is certain: Your legal rights don’t matter if you never try to use them.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and an assortment of other masked Federal officers are arresting U.S. citizens for not showing ID or “proof” of citizenship on the streets, at traffic stops, and in warrantless door-to-door searches in the Twin Cities.

ICE is planning to station agents to “check documents” on the jetbridges at the Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport.

With all this happening, we’ve posted a new know-your rights FAQ for U.S. citizens, “Do I have to show ID as a pedestrian, passenger in a car (not the driver, for whom the rules are different), at my home, or at the airport for a domestic flight?” (Also available here as a printable one-page PDF.)

This know-your-rights guide is for U.S. citizens. The law is different for those who aren’t U.S. citizens: U.S. law requires non-U.S. citizens in the U.S. for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government and carry  their papers “at all times”.  But there are many other good resources for non-U.S. citizens such as this brochure. We’ve found few other clear guides to the rights of U.S. citizens in situations like those today in Minnesota, in which U.S. citizens are being (illegally) required to prove their right to walk the streets, live peacefully in their homes, or travel within their own country.

This guide is a work in progress. We’ve posted it quickly because the need seems urgent. We welcome suggestions for corrections or changes.

Knowing and asserting your rights protects everyone in our society — including non-U.S. citizens. It shows other people that they have rights too, and shows police that we know we have rights. Rights are not, in and of themselves, a protection. You can’t count on police to respect your rights. But police act differently when people know and assert their rights.

Liberty lives in its exercise. Freedom dies if it’s not used. Know your rights — and use them.