Those folks would then, I would imagine, have standing (on the grounds that they know that they would be restrained from doing something), although they'd presumably have to show why they believed themselves to be on the NFL.

The DHS needs to be sued again and again until the no-fly list is abolished.

DHS needs to be sued again and again until DHS is abolished.

Whoops, my bad :o I read the headline "DHS Will Now Indicate When Somebody’s on Their No-Fly List. You are now free to discover whether you are actually free to fly the friendly skies.", and I took it literally. As I read further, it looks more like "the right to discover" means nothing more than the right to discover what someone already knows...having bought a ticket and been denied boarding. If indeed everyone had a recognized right to discover whether they were on the list, this would drastically increase the number of potential plaintiffs.

i filed for redress due to SSSS and the so called final decision letter didn't say why.
It just says "maybe mistaken for someone else or random selection"

Standing is an "interesting" legal principle in many respects. On the one hand, the basic purpose (to ensure that there is actually a case before the court to decide and that the parties have an interest...basically making sure that the court's time is not being wasted) is understandable and acceptable. On the other hand, there are two issues with it that are quite an annoyance:
(1) There is a detailed history of courts using standing-related excuses to avoid cases they don't want to tackle. Witness various challenges to executive authority on military deployments:
-The troops can't sue (part of the job)
-The troops' families can't sue
-For all intents and purposes, Congress can't sue unless they exhaust every other remedy (including those which would be politically completely impossible to foresee them using).
(2) To challenge a given statute, with very few exceptions one needs to end up in jeopardy from that statute. With some things involving excessive sentences and the like, someone needs to wind up in danger of being in jail for many years to challenge the law (even if said law is blatantly unconstitutional) and may wind up confined for a long time as part of the challenge, potentially without compensation.

By the way, with respect to something like the "No-Fly List" (or a similar restriction on travel), though it doesn't quite reach the standard of it (as not all people fly) I would be inclined to argue that a state exists where in many cases a collision is inevitable and only the passage of time is at issue; I would also argue that the harm by forcing a wait is, in some fashion, potentially far more damaging. Of course, I'd also be open to the government having a choice between either granting a review prior to a denial of boarding or facing steep damages if they really want to wait for the collision.

I'm certainly not a lawyer but it seems to me that a citizens right to travel should not be infringed without some form of legal proceeding where an opportunity to respond is required.

To me it is just that simple.

It should be that simple, but there are a lot of people with vested interests in such infringements who obfuscate the issue with legalisms and technicalities, when the real issue is as basic as freedom.