Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 27, 12, 9:11 am   #1
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Seattle
Programs: AIR: NONE, Hotel: Marriott PL, Hilton HHonors CC: Amex PLAT
Posts: 946
No-fly list lawsuit should proceed in federal court in Portland, appeals panel rules

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...hould_pro.html

"In a decision issued Thursday, the panel found that U.S. District Judge Anna Brown erred in dismissing the case, filed on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens or permanent residents, for lack of jurisdiction last year. The appeals decision said Brown’s court does have the authority to consider the their complaint about placement on the list as well as to consider whether the government’s process for getting off the list is constitutionally inadequate.

It will be the first time that the federal government has to defend the validity of the process people must use to challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list, said Nusrat Choudhury, the staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."
yknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 12, 1:27 pm   #2
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,024
More here from the Wall St Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/26/...-tsa-policies/
__________________
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
Wimpie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 12, 10:06 pm   #3
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Next to a salty lake in Utah
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 2,882
So what happens when the District Judge orders the TSA added to the suit and then dismisses it again?
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 12, 10:53 pm   #4
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Costa Mesa, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Starwood (Plat) and every other US program
Posts: 3,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
So what happens when the District Judge orders the TSA added to the suit and then dismisses it again?
I think one of the points, of the 9th Circuit opinion, was that the TSA doesn't control the do not fly list.
sbrower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 12, 1:00 am   #5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: Delta Air Lines, US Dividend Miles, Rapids Reward
Posts: 30,352
So...did he won the case against TSA?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/scottweinbergpage?ref=hl Go to my new Facebook Page. Enjoy!
http://www.scottysair.com/
N830MH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 3:13 pm   #6
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Dia, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold, PC Plat, ClubC Gold
Posts: 8,990
Looks like Judge Brown got the message after she was slapped down on appeal, as she has just now issued an order that invalidates the appeals process for people who appear on the no-fly list:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...rocess_un.html

People who are placed on the government's no-fly list are denied their constitutional right to due process, because the government's procedures to challenge inclusion on the secretive roster are "wholly ineffective," a federal judge ruled.

In a 65-page opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown ordered the government to come up with a new way for the 13 plaintiffs to contest their inclusion on the list that prohibits them from flying in or through U.S. airspace. The government must provide notice to the plaintiffs that they are on the roster and give the reasons for their inclusion, Brown wrote. She also ordered that the government allow the plaintiffs to submit evidence to refute the government's suspicions.

The decision marks a big win for the plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the case on their behalf. The plaintiffs have all been denied boarding due to their placement on the list, they argue, despite never having been charged with a terrorism-related offense.

The plaintiffs include Sheikh Mohamed Kariye, the religious leader of Portland's largest mosque, Masjed As-Saber. Kariye was refused boarding in 2010 and has been unable to travel overseas to visit his daughter or accompany his mother on a religious pilgrimage since.

In an email, the ACLU hailed the decision.

"For years, in the name of national security the government has argued for blanket secrecy and judicial deference to its profoundly unfair No Fly List procedures, and those arguments have now been resoundingly rejected by the court," said ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case.

"Our clients will finally get the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution. This excellent decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardships. We hope this serves as a wake-up call for the government to fix its broken watchlist system, which has swept up so many innocent people."
__________________
2014 Upgrades as a UA 1K @ SFO: CPU: 3/10; R/GPU (including gifts) 6/6 - Follow Boraxo's reviews on Yelp, Tripadvisor and Amazon
Boraxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 4:12 pm   #7
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,328
I read the whole opinion. Not quite as good as the one in Ibrahim, but the correct result.
Ari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 4:29 pm   #8
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,439
Official ACLU press release:
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...st-be-reformed

Link to the Oregonian's copy of the decision:
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-...FlyOpinion.pdf

Mods, can we update the title to "No-Fly List Process Ruled Unconstitutional in Portland"?

Last edited by janetdoe; Jun 24, 14 at 4:36 pm.
janetdoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 4:56 pm   #9
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: AA, QF, DL, SPG, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 55,138
Awesome!

The government scumbags who initiated and maintained the no-fly list should be individually liable for damages and should face criminal prosecution.

Pissant should be immediately arrested to start off the prosecutions.
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for Change.
Spiff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 5:00 pm   #10
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,439
Out of all the terrible, terrible stories in the ruling, what I notice most are the ones where the passenger is also not allowed to travel by land or sea. So I guess the logic of, "You are guaranteed to the right to travel, but not by any particular means," meets its death. No-Fly list means that you cannot travel internationally, period.

Also waaaay too many statements that the FBI offered to remove them from the list if they agreed to become an informant to be coincidence. Also, so many offers of 'one-time waivers'. The FBI obviously doesn't believe them too dangerous to fly, but they are using the No-Fly List to coerce them. How shameful.
janetdoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 5:50 pm   #11
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 198
Here's the thread on the partial summary judgment from 2013

Perhaps we could merge threads? I searched for Latif v. Holder before starting the other one, but missed this thread. Apologies for my sloppiness.
RedSnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 6:11 pm   #12
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 864
Finally, the courts are becoming fully cognizant that the offspring of 9/11 are truly unconstitutional measures and means, and we have a government that has demonstrated it is willing to abuse whatever real or imagined authority it thinks it has.

It is high time, and should start to put to rest the timeless refrain of DHS minions that we "have no constitutional right to fly."

We may have no enumerated constitutional right to fly, but this court's record is now clear: DHS has no constitutional ability to stop us from flying without at least a semblance of due process.

I wonder what the next chapter will be?
greentips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 6:18 pm   #13
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: AA, QF, DL, SPG, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 55,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentips View Post

I wonder what the next chapter will be?
Arrest and prosecution of DHS and TSA employees would be a good start.
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for Change.
Spiff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 6:31 pm   #14
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 198
This is very good news. The opinion itself seems well-researched. As expected, it cited Rahinah Ibrahim's case which has also been discussed here. This instant case, however, could have a much broader impact upon everyone who has been denied procedural due process through the no-fly-list scheme.

The court is moving slowly and methodically forward. As of now, the current no-fly-list procedure has been struck down as unconstitutional. But it has not yet declared what process should be adopted in its place. For this it is seeking input from the parties. For now, we just have to wait and see...
RedSnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 14, 6:42 pm   #15
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Programs: Star, Oneworld, Skymiles, SPG
Posts: 241
It is interesting that the "no-fly list" makes a mockery of the TSA.

What the list says to me is that the FBI believes that people on the no-fly list are so clever that the current system of passenger and baggage screening can't be trusted to stop them from committing terrorist acts and keep airline travel safe. Thus these people must be barred from all airline travel whatsoever.
eghansen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:05 am.