
Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution - Shivetya
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-usa-noflylist-idUSKBN0EZ2EU20140624
======
unreal37
This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is
indeed a violation of liberty.

I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons,
watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there
should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a
U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever,
unable to travel, with no evidence or justifiable proof of criminal
association with terrorists. That's limbo.

~~~
jevinskie
Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

~~~
the_watcher
The ruling does seem to imply that, however, on appeal, that will almost
certainly be clarified. No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so
broadly defined that it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who
can and cannot fly. The ruling will likely be clarified for precedent to mean
that the right to due process includes a right to quickly and effectively
contest designations by government agencies in the absence of formal charges
of violating a law.

The right to travel, in the broad sense of "you have the right to move
wherever you want to move so long as no laws are violated," is likely covered
by an umbrella of the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression, as
well as the 9th Amendment, as a negative right: you are free from being
prevented from travel by means not permissible by law or Constitutionally.

~~~
jacalata
_No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly defined that
it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who can and cannot fly._

Why not?

~~~
the_watcher
Because judges are hesitant to make such sweeping redefinitions of established
law. Not that it doesn't happen, or taking a position on whether it's optimal,
but it's incredibly uncommon, and generally frowned upon by the judicial and
legal community. Even the most ardent judicial activists tend to favor change
by increment.

------
middleclick
"The 13 plaintiffs - four of them veterans of the U.S. military - deny they
have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when
they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight."

This truly fits the definition of a Kafkaesque system -- you are put on a list
and you are denied justice and never told what your crime is.

Great work by the ACLU.

~~~
revelation
Well, in many cases there is _no crime_. Given the ridiculous amount of people
on the list and the way the form is designed, a large number will be on there
due to a "mistake" in filling out the form.

Theres an excerpt of the form here:

[http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/vgtof-...](http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/vgtof-form.png)

Notice how you have to _check_ the box to indicate someone is _not_ to be
added to the list. It is completely counter-intuitive. I'd say it is just
badly designed, but we're far beyond innocent mistakes here, at this point
there needs to be judicial and personal responsibility for the people involved
in its creation and ongoing maintenance.

~~~
zhengyi13
Apart from the cognitive difficulties this creates, forcing you to check the
box means the default is to add someone to the no-fly list (see Dan Ariely's
research)

------
TallGuyShort
>> individuals listed under the policy may ultimately petition a U.S. appeals
court directly for relief

Why isn't it the other way around? Shouldn't they have to prove to a judge
that there is reasonable suspicion you are or have been engaged in terrorism
before they can interfere in your affairs?

~~~
adventured
You're absolutely correct. They should have to provide evidence proving
legitimate concerns about the person in question, preferably to a civilian
judicial court that is public, and each person has to be manually confirmed to
be a danger and then put on the list.

Then there should be a transparent, straight-forward way to challenge it.

------
enraged_camel
The title is a bit misleading. The judge did not rule that the No Fly List
itself is unconstitutional. The government can still have such a list and put
you on it. The only difference is that they now have to notify people as such
and provide reasons as well as easy ways to appeal your inclusion.

I find this to be a minor victory at best. In my opinion, the elephant in the
room is that there is a No Fly List in the first place. If someone is deemed
so dangerous that they should not be allowed to get on an airplane, they
should be in prison. After all, that's one reason why we have prisons: to keep
dangerous people away from society. What can such people do on an airplane
that they can't do on a bus or a train?

------
motbob
The ruling only applies to U.S. citizens. As mentioned in the article, the
vast majority of people on the list are non-citizens.

EDIT: Or perhaps it does apply to non-citizens when they are on U.S. soil. I'm
not sure.

~~~
pc86
The Constitution applies to anyone within the US, citizen or not.

~~~
dragonwriter
More accurately, the U.S. Constitution applies to the US government, not to
the people it interacts with. Some of its rules are preconditioned on dealings
with certain classes of people, however, so citizenship is sometimes
_relevant_ to Constitutional considerations.

~~~
pc86
Yes that is an important clarification. Thank you.

------
Aqueous
I do not believe a judge currently has to authorize someone's placement on the
No Fly List, which right away raises red flags. So the No Fly List is
definitely unconstitutional as it is currently implemented, but I wonder if it
would be replaced a constitutional implementation. For instance, if FBI, CIA,
or NSA had to clear a probable cause legal hurdle in order to place someone on
the list, and if a judge, rather than the TSA, had to approve their placement,
then the program might be constitutional. The proceedings might have to be
secret, so the no fly list would function like some NSA programs that I know
folks here are so fond of (note: sarcasm) - but at least it would involve the
judiciary rather than giving the executive branch carte blanche to prohibit
anyone it deems suspect from travelling.

~~~
saraid216
I'm pretty sure such a constitutional implementation already exists: namely,
they can just revoke your passport, which I _think_ has to go through due
process.

~~~
Aqueous
You don't need a passport to get on a domestic flight, though - so there's a
blind spot for existing law.

------
webmaven
Very welcome news. I hope it will have a positive impact on cases like
[http://www.papersplease.org/wp/category/freedom-to-
travel/](http://www.papersplease.org/wp/category/freedom-to-travel/)

------
adventured
At a minimum challenging these systems is a good thing. Most were put into
place with zero debate, no serious judicial challenges, and zero input from
the general public (whom they have the greatest impact on).

Whether or not the no-fly list can really be stopped through a normal judicial
means at this point, I think that's up for debate given how far the US
Government has gone past concerning itself for the rule of law.

------
higherpurpose
Now if only we'd get a similar ruling for no-warrant "border" searches, where
border can mean tens of miles from the actual border.

~~~
tobinfricke
Apparently it has been asserted that this special border region extends inward
_100 miles_ from borders _and coastlines_. This swath includes around 2/3 of
the US population.

[http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-
searches-041/](http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-041/)

[https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-
zone...](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map)

~~~
IanDrake
Youtube has got some great videos of people enforcing their rights at these
stops.

------
tiedemann
The US needs to rewrite some of that amendment stuff. It clearly sucks.

------
XorNot
About time.

There's no human being on Earth so dangerous they can't be safely put on an
airplane.

~~~
unreal37
I might question that statement. Being a passenger on an airplane requires you
to accept a certain amount of responsibility. A person unable to behave
properly and/or refrain from harming others in some way (angry, drunk, high,
insane, actively trying to crash the airplane, physically abusive, having a
communicable disease, etc) should probably be banned from air travel until
their behavior and/or ability to harm others can be controlled.

~~~
reustle
I have never smoked in my life, and I don't plan to, but did you just put
people that are high in the same bucket as drunks and insane people? They are
very different types of people.

~~~
nickpapa
Marijuana isn't the only drug that gets you high. He was using "high" in the
sense of other, more harmful drugs that completely distort your reality and
can cause you to become violent. Remember the bath salt incidents a while
back?

------
INTPnerd
"Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling." 65 pages! They need some good programmers
to help them refactor that to be shorter, more expressive, more readable, and
changeable using the DRY principal and such.

~~~
forgottenpass
_using the DRY principal and such_

Repeating yourself is actually very important in court opinions. It shows that
the court has considered all the case materials, claims, and legal precedent
to clearly spell out what all of that means and how they factor into the
findings of law.

They're very readable to people trained in the art, or the moderately-engaged
passersby. Additionally, courts typically write with narrow margins and/or
heavy line spacing.

