Scott Tooley entered a nightmare world the minute he uttered the word 'bomb.'

Or so he says. So far, the truth is elusive. And now, due to a ruling Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will be wading back into this morass

Tooley is an attorney and former congressional aide who once worked for then-Rep. Christopher Cox of California. He says he was subjected to roving  wiretaps.  He says his car, and his wife's car, were both tagged with radio frequency devices that allowed investigators to track their movements. He says he has been subjected to airport strip searches and placed on a terrorist watch list. He's seen mysterious black Crown Victoria cars -- the kind favored by cops -- shadowing him.

And it all happened, Tooley contends, because of a conversation he had in the spring of 2002 with a Southwest Airlines passenger representative.

Tooley, in response to a question, told the Southwest rep that he would like 100 percent of everything that goes into the airplane, including  cargo, to be fully screened. He was asked why, and, as the circuit court noted in a February ruling:

    "(Tooley) responded that the traveling public, including himself, was less safe due to the potential that those who wish to harm American citizens could put a bomb on a plane."

Bang. The word 'bomb,' Tooley said, triggered an alarmed response by the airline rep, who put Tooley on hold for 20 minutes. And ever since, he claims, he's been having problems. He sued various federal agencies, seeking documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The Transportation Security Administration refused to confirm or deny whether he was on a watch list.

In 2006, a trial judge granted summary judgment for the government; in part, the judge determined Tooley lacked standing: could he show that any wiretapping was the work of federal rather than state agents? In February, a divided three-member of the D.C. Circuit Court, with Judge David Sentelle dissenting, overturned the trial judge and let Tooley's case proceed.

Now, at the government's request, the same three-judge panel has agreed to re-hear the case. Not the entire circuit, mind you, just the same three judge panel. Which, to Suits & Sentences' admittedly limited understanding, doesn't happen all that often.