Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government The Courts United States News Your Rights Online

Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution 276

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-wasp-list-and-no-mosquito-list-remain-unchallenged dept.
New submitter dmitrygr sends this news from Reuters: The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. ... "The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society," [U.S. District Judge Anna Brown] wrote in her 65-page ruling (PDF). "Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiff's inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel," Brown said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

Comments Filter:
  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @06:49PM (#47310551)
    https://www.aclu.org/national-... [aclu.org] I guess being US military personnel associates one with being a lunatic extremest. 4 of those on the list were veterans.
  • Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)

    by phayes (202222) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @06:51PM (#47310563) Homepage

    The judge's ruling will be challenged & until/unless it wins every appeal (all the way to the supreme court in all probability), the ruling changes nothing.

    Sooo, until the ruling is definitively confirmed, nothing changes.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @06:54PM (#47310573)

    I would feel safer if the freedom to travel was specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, personally... wonder historically why it wasn't.

    More or less, it actually was:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

    The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.

  • by Dorianny (1847922) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @06:55PM (#47310583) Journal
    In 2004 senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the No Fly List. Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!
  • by almitydave (2452422) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @06:56PM (#47310589)
  • by sir-gold (949031) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @07:09PM (#47310677)

    It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.

    In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.

    It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.

  • by jcochran (309950) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @07:13PM (#47310709)

    The ruling doesn't ban the no fly list, it merely requires the government to make a suitable appeal process for those who are on the list. So you may expect the list to still be in use for quite a while. Additionally, Judge Brown is only on the Oregon district. So her ruling only applies to Oregon (however, it will be used as a precedent in other districts). All in all, it's still a very good ruling, but there's still a long ways to go.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @07:16PM (#47310727) Homepage Journal

    Since they are supported by your tax dollars, why not?

    http://www.narprail.org/resour... [narprail.org]

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @07:44PM (#47310933) Homepage Journal
    It gets more fun too
    "Immigration officer fired after putting wife on list of terrorists to stop her flying home (31 January 2011)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
    "US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List" (Apr 17, 2014)
    https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
    That other list:
    "DHS ‘hands off’ list allowed suspects with terror ties into U.S."
    http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
    'Hands off' list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US (May 07, 2014)
    http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
  • by TheGavster (774657) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:23PM (#47311203) Homepage

    Entries in the no-fly list are sufficiently bare of details that by the law of large numbers, most of the entries probably apply to a US citizen somewhere, even if the entry was added for a specific non-citizen. Hence why there are periodic stories of family vacations stopped by the US Government accusing 3 year olds of terrorist sympathies and soldiers recently returned from duty of being the enemy they were just engaged with.

  • Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)

    by 7-Vodka (195504) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @01:24AM (#47312681) Journal

    The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.

    In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.

    So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.

    So the difference on slashdot is that people will have a case to point to, but still won't.

    What the fuck?

    Have you ever read the constitution?

    First of all you have it all backwards my retarded son.

    The constitution allows the federal government to be granted certain rights by the people to do some very specific things. The federal government is PROHIBITED from doing anything not specifically listed.

    I quoteth:

    Tenth Amendment
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Please for the love of the spaghetti monster, where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to restrict people's travel liberties without due process? Oh that's right, it ain't there so they don't have it.

    Fifth Amendment
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Oh and the constitution does not have to list every right that belongs to the people. They belong to the people, listed on a piece of paper or not and are not granted by the government. The government is granted it's rights by the people, not the other way around.

    Ninth Amendment
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    So to the parent post and those who modded it up: SuuuUUUuuuck IiiiiiiiT.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce

Working...