The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from online civil liberties pioneer John Gilmore who was contesting a Ninth Circuit decision which held that the government did not have to make public its rules about requiring airlines to ask passengers for identification.

This is the end of the road for Gilmore's case. Gilmore argued that the government cannot enforce a secret rule. The 9th Circuit disagreed, saying that the Government can enforce a secret rule in the case where the secret rule doesn't take away your fundamental rights. At the heart of the 9th's decision was the following illogical passage, which the Supreme Court has effectively upheld by denying cert in this case, at least in regard to the western United States.

"He was not threatened with arrest or some other form of punishment; rather he simply was told that unless he complied with the policy, he would not be permitted to board the plane. There was no penalty for noncompliance."

Apparently, the Government can enforce a secret rule as long as the rule does not impinge on a fundamental right that is specifically protected by the Constitution. The right to fly on an airplane is not specifically protected (based on the logic that you could walk to your destination) and so the Government can enforce secret rules with regard to it. Whether or not the Government can enforce secret rules in the context where a fundamental right is impinged is a matter for a different lawsuit.

Its not totally absolutely over for the legal question. Its technically possible for this matter to be raised in another district, and if that district reaches a different conclusion, its possible that the Supreme Court would hear the case. Sometimes the Supremes like to wait for a number of different jurisdictions to look at an issue in different ways before they take it on... There is no telling when or how these issues will come up in court again. If all of the districts reach the same conclusion, it won't matter either.