Can an airline passenger who was falsely accused of making a bomb threat sue an airport security officer for deliberately violating his civil rights?

No, at least not where the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is concerned, a federal appeals court panel has ruled.

In issuing that precedential decision this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that Congressional curbs and the need to protect airline passengers from terrorist require that federal Transportation Security Administration officers be declared immune from such lawsuits.

That finding, contained in an opinion by Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan, stems from a January 2013 dispute between passenger Roger Vanderklok and TSA agent Charles Kreiser at Philadelphia International Airport.

Vanderklok was to board a flight to Miami, where he was to participate in a half-marathon. In his carry-on luggage was a plastic pipe, capped at both ends, that contained a heart monitor and a watch.

That object prompted TSA officials to subject Vanderklok's bag to additional screening.

Vanderklok claimed Kreiser was "disrespectful and aggressive" while the bag was searched. When he told Kreiser he was going to file a complaint about his behavior, Kreiser called the police and falsely accused him of threatening to bring a bomb to the airport, Vanderklok claimed.

Philadelphia police charged Vanderklok with disorderly conduct, threatening placement of a bomb and making terroristic threats. He was acquitted during a trial after a surveillance video of the incident showed Kreiser's accusations to be "largely inconsistent" with what the camera captured, Jordan noted.

Vanderklok sued, claiming Kreiser violated his First Amendment rights by making the false charge in retaliation for his threat to file a complaint. Vanderklok claimed Kreiser also violated his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

The Fourth Amendment claim is still pending in U.S. Eastern District Court, where Judge Gerald J. Pappert refused to grant Kreiser immunity from Vanderklok's suit on that claim. Jordan wrote that the Fourth Amendment issue was not yet ripe for his court's review.

Jordan's court became involved in the dispute when it considered Kreiser's appeal of Pappert's decision not to grant him immunity from Vanderklok's First Amendment retaliation claim as well.

The appeals court, with a hint of reluctance, overruled Pappert on the First Amendment issue, finding that Kreiser is indeed immune from that part of Vanderklok's complaint.

There is a dire matter of national security involved, Jordan found.

He noted the TSA was created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Most TSA officers aren't trained as police officers on such matters as probable cause for arrest, he added, and must call on police when issues arise during their searches of airline passengers.

Allowing the threat of lawsuits to hang over TSA staffers could impede airport safety, Jordan found. He noted there is an internal disciplinary system for handling complaints about the actions of TSA staffers.

Also, Congress has limited judicial review of TSA operations on grounds of national security, the circuit judge observed.

"TSA employees like Kreiser are tasked with assisting in a critical aspect of national security," Jordan wrote. "The threat of damages liability (from being sued) could indeed increase the probability that a TSA agent would hesitate in making split-second decisions about suspicious passengers."

"We, of course, do not suggest that TSA screeners should act with disdain for passenger rights or that they can escape all consequences of their bad behavior," he added. "Discipline by the government should be swift and certain, when its employees' actions warrant it."