Slashdot Mirror
One Strike Against No Fly List; More Scrutiny To Come
New submitter MickyTheIdiot writes "The Jurist reports: 'A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled Wednesday (PDF) that those placed on the U.S. government's no-fly list have 'a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List.' The plaintiffs in the case are 13 U.S. citizens who were denied boarding on flights over U.S. airspace after January 2009.' Judge Anna Brown hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the No Fly List yet, and has instructed the attorneys involved to present a roadmap for deciding the remaining issues. However, she has acknowledged that the No Fly List is a major burden to those on the list and they have the right to get that status reviewed."
At the very least, someone on the No-Fly list should be allowed to fly if they pay for a second seat and an armed government agent to sit behind them the whole flight.
It seems like if the increased screening actually worked a no-fly list is rather pointless... I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right? And if you simply don't want them entering the U.S. well that's what customs is for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are a lot of people coming in here, saying "about time" or something similar. What this attitude fails to incorporate is that the judicial system isn't concerned with unjust policies until they actually create injustice. And even then, an actual judge has to be less terrible than those that created the policies in the first place.
It takes a long time, and is a natural component of how checks and balances work in the US. It's not perfect, and sometimes the bad comes from congress faster than it can be addressed, but this is how things are supposed to work.
From the article:
Judge Anna Brown has not concluded whether the government's use of the no-fly list violated the plaintiffss constitutional rights to due process, stating in her opinion that, "the court is not yet able to resolve on the current record whether the judicial-review process is a sufficient, post-deprivation process under the United States Constitution." Brown has given both parties till September 9 to file a joint status report setting out their recommendation as to the most effective process to ensure that the court may come to a conclusion on the remaining issues
So there are still some big issues to resolve, before the practically inevitable appeals begin.
There will be some tough issues to work through since no doubt some of the evidence in individual cases is classified. Still, there should be some sort of process to have information in one's favor considered. Both sides have a point.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Tell us, misleadingly, how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel, and then sleazily recast this into the context of coercion of private corporations. You've done it a hundred times before, so get to it.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
If the government decides that someone is a threat such that they shouldn't be allowed to fly, then they should be arrested and tried for whatever crimes they're accused of.
If they haven't committed a crime and are simply guilty by association, then they are being punished without a trial. Not being able to fly is a very strong punishment.
Does the no-fly list make it illegal for the person on the list to fly, or illegal for a common carrier to carry them, or some other thing like they can't enter the controlled space at the airport? I could do the research but maybe someone who knows can explain it much better than the legalese in the law, and I'm not even sure if the relevant laws aren't in that crazy "secret law" category that seems to show up when the TSA is mentioned.
One part that is concerning to me, beyond the constitutional issues, is that even if one accepts that it is necessary for safety to have a list of people who should be subjected to additional scrutiny prior to flight, that suspect person can't be cleared as "safe to fly" with essentially unlimited invasive screening by the TSA. Which means either (a) the security measures are easily bypassed even when a person is targeted for extreme scrutiny or (b) the no fly list actually serves a policing or political function, that is, to locate / harass / intimidate / prevent the free travel of / etc. of people who manage to make it on the list. I'm guessing it is the latter, which is depressing, but not surprising. Abuse of power seems to be an unavoidable part of giving people power.
I believed I could fly
I believed I could touch the sky
I thought about it every night and day
Just board a plane and fly away
I believed I could soar
Now agents are running through that open door
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
A right to travel implies that you may also choose your means of transport. Because, well, why stop at planes? Bar them from trains, busses or using their own car. If we now just break their legs they can have all the right to travel they want to, but can't use it.
It's a bit like getting the right to free speech and having your mouth glued shut. You may speak... if you find a way to. What value is in a right you cannot execute because the means to use it are taken from you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.
In the Articles of Confederation, the following right is explicitly granted:
"the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce"
-- Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, Article IV, Paragraph 1
This document is still technically a part of the United States Code, although I haven't seen it cited as rationale in a legal argument for preventing the "no fly list". This is also one of the few individual freedoms explicitly mentioned in founding documents that is not a part of the Constitution of 1787. As to if this document still holds legal weight could also be questioned, I suppose, but technically all the Constitution of 1787 did was update this document. It certainly puts such notions of "it is a privilege not a right" legal theories into serious question.
In other words, the right to travel is an explicitly granted constitutional right and not something that can be extrapolated more loosely from things like the 9th Amendment (which I think this quote amply shows something previously thought of as an individual right not to be eliminated by its absence in other legal documents).
You might be able to argue that the internal combustion engine itself is regulated and requires an operator's permit, although that is a real stretch. States simply can't prohibit either entry or exit of other otherwise legal citizens of other states and it can be assumed that includes travel internal to that state too.
There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.
The privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, and the right to be a passenger in one are VERY VERY different things.
Similiarly I don't think anyone is especially outraged that the government restricts who can fly a plane. (That would be anyone without a pilots license in good standing, which is most people, including me.) The contentious issue is restricting who can be a passenger in one.
Afraid not. The US Constitution is a full replacement for the Articles of Confederation, and why they opted to do full replacement vs a (long) series of amendments... is a much lengthier discussion.
The Articles of Confederation have as much legal weight today as the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which is the same as the Federalist, Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the ratification debate notes... interesting insights into the thinking & deliberations at the time.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I would like to know how I can drive to Hawaii? Or how I can drive to Alaska without the permission of a foreign government.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You can board the ferry at Bellingham, washington and get off at Alaska without ever going through Canadian customs.
You can't drive to Hawaii that I know of but you can take a cruise there from the mainland.
Not sure what your real point was though.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The opinion and order explains that in detail.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf
1. Right to Travel
Plaintiffs contend the government has deprived them of their protected liberty interest in travel. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the Supreme Court held “[t]he right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 125.
As noted by the Ninth Circuit, “the [Supreme] Court has consistently treated the right to international travel as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” DeNieva v. Reyes, 966 F.2d 480, 485 (9th Cir. 1992)(emphasis added)(citing Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-08 (1964), and Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176 (1978)). In DeNieva the plaintiff brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her passport was seized by government officials. The Ninth Circuit held the plaintiff had a right under the Fifth Amendment to travel internationally, and that right could not be deprived without a post-deprivation hearing. 966 F.2d. at 485.
Although Defendants do not dispute the United States Constitution affords procedural due-process protection to an individual’s liberty interest in travel, Defendants rely heavily on Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006), and Green v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2005), to support their position that there is not a constitutional right to travel by airplane or to access the most convenient form of travel. In Gilmore the plaintiff challenged the government’s airline passenger identification policy as unconstitutional, alleging the policy violated his right to travel because he could not travel by commercial airline without presenting identification. The Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s argument because “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” 435 F.3d at 1136. The court also found the “burden” imposed by the challenged identification policy was not unreasonable. Id. at 1137. The plaintiffs in Green alleged they were innocent passengers without links to terrorist activity, but they had names similar or identical to names on the No Fly List and had been mistakenly identified by airport personnel as the individuals whose names appeared on that list. As a result, the plaintiffs were subjected to enhanced security screening. None of the plaintiffs ever missed a flight or were subjected to heightened screening for more than an hour. 351 F. Supp. 2d at 1122. The court denied the plaintiffs’ procedural due-process claim and held the plaintiffs did not have a right to travel throughout the United States “without any impediments whatsoever.” Id. at 1130.
The Court finds Green and Gilmore are distinguishable from this case for a number of reasons. These cases involve burdens on the right to interstate travel as opposed to international travel. Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation. In Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument similar to the one made by Defendants here:
While the Constitution does not ordinarily guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation
I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.
Oxford: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.
I don't read AC A human right
This document is still technically a part of the United States Code,
No, the Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code. They were superseded by the current US Constitution. They are not law in any way shape or form, except perhaps as an occasional interpretive guide to the current constitution when in court cases we try to compare it to the current document to argue that the new language means something different.
Repeat: The Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code.
(But what would I know? I'm just a law prof who has taught constitutional law...)
I have a blog.
That's true.
Although, it not really any different to the fact that you don't need a drivers license to operate a bicycle, and most states don't require one even for an electric one provided its sufficiently low power.