Show ID or pay a fee to attend a “public” meeting?
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 to decide in its discretion 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:
- 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).
- Requiring individuals to have or show ID credentials.
- Requiring individuals to answer questions including questions from a third party (in this case, the TSA).
- 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.)
- 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.
In California, state law explicitly prohibits a public body from requiring members of the public to sign in, state their name, answer questions, or provide information in order to attend a public meeting, or placing any other conditions on attendance:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=11124.
There’s no similar *explicit* requirement in the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, but we believe that this is part of meaning of “open to the public”.
The government hates sovereign citizens. Not theirs but yours.
Initial response from the MAC to our request for records: https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/MAC-response-02052026.pdf
Follow-up: “Data related to requests (1), (2), and (3) exist, but are not subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”)…. The “use, collection, storage, and dissemination of data by” the MAC’s attorneys are governed by the “‘professional standards concerning […] professional responsibility,’ not by the MGDPA.” Scheffler v. City of Anoka, 890 N.W. 2d 437, 450–51 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). Hence, if data are required to be held in confidence under applicable rules of professional conduct for attorneys, then they are not subject to the MGDPA. This does not change if that same information is disseminated by attorneys to others within the organization they represent.”
Final response from the MAC: “I took some time to re-run our searches to be absolutely sure of our response. There is no additional responsive data…. I can confirm for you that all other data responsive to items 1, 2, or 3 of your original request fall within Minn. Stat. s. 13.393’s exemption.”
Statement from a spokesperson for the MAC:
“The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in full compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML), as all Committee and
Commission meetings are open to the public. The OML requires that a public body’s meetings be open to the public; it does not require a public body to allow the public to attend anonymously or participate anonymously, nor does it preclude a public body from meeting in a location with applicable security requirements. It is common practice for public bodies to meet in locations, like courthouses, that require security screening. This practice is not in conflict with the OML’s public access requirement. As indicated on our meeting agendas, there are multiple ways to obtain REAL ID-compliant identification for a concourse pass to attend a Committee or Commission meeting.”
The statement from the MAC did not address the legality of denying entry to those (especially non-US citizens) who are ineligible for REAL-ID, or of allowing the TSA discretionary authority to decide who to allow, or not allow, to attend MAC meetings.
The MAC website says that, “TSA ConfirmID costs $45, and the MAC will cover this cost for up to three meetings.” The MAC doesn’t say what the process for having the MAC “cover this cost” is. Is someone from the MAC posted at a TSA checkpoint before and during MAC meetings to pay the fee on behalf of members of the public seeking to attend MAC meetings? Are members of the public expected to contact the MAC (and if so, how?) to have them pay the fee? Is there any signage at the checkpoint(s) explaining this process? Are members of the public expected to pay the fee themselves, and then seek reimbursement form the MAC (and if so, how)? The fee can only be paid by debit or credit card. What if you are unbanked, don’t have a debit or credit card, or your card is declined? We’d welcome reports form anyone who has attended a MAC meeting without showing ID.