As the trial court stated in Latif v Holder, this is a "Stigma-Plus" case. Stigma-Plus began with Wisconsin v Constantineau, and was narrowed by Paul v Davis. To summarize this simply: if the DHS boss says "RedSnapper is a terrorist", the Paul case is controlling and I can only sue him for defamation. If he says I am a terrorist and places me on a no-fly list, then Constantineau controls, the "plus" part of the test has been met, and I can sue for a deprivation of my civil rights.

The question for standing is: "when does the deprivation occur?" Does the person put on the no-fly list need to buy a ticket and attempt to board? Does the person who has been verbally denied boarding need to rush the gate to see if he is physically stopped from boarding? Does the person who has physically been denied boarding have to fight with the gate agents to see if the police come and arrest him? Does the person who has been verbally told that he is under arrest have to scuffle with the cops to see if they really mean it?

The answer to all of these questions is "No". Once a person is placed on a no-fly-list, his legal status has been altered in an actionable way. He is under no obligation to push the envelope to find out if the government officials will make good on their promise to deny him boarding. He has been harmed once he is on that list. He has standing to sue immediately.

...with the oblig "I am not your lawyer, and this is not to be taken as personal legal advice"...