I'm unclear to me as to how a person gets to sue the government for denied boarding as a result of the no-fly list.

The person is denied boarding by the airline, not the government. The airline can't say why it's denying boarding, because the presence on the NFL is a secret. So the person has to sue the airline for damages, since the airline is the only party involved as far as they know. When they go to court, the airline still can't say why they denied, so they lose the case right there and have to pay up.

When and how does the government get involved?

In both cases (NFL and orange juice engine list), the entity has put the individual on a list. Presence on that list has negative implications, should the individual attempt to engage in a specific action (fly, or get his oil changed). Unless and until one's presence on that list actually causes the individual harm (can't fly, is barred from doing something else, gets orange juice in his engine), the mere presence on the list hasn't harmed that person.

You may be stating the legal side of this correctly but I don't think it is right or proper for government to be making secret lists of citizens that will be barred from basic civil rights.

Certainly doesn't complete the picture of a free nation that I was brought up to believe in or spent a career defending.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the no fly list is good policy, or something the government should be doing.* I was merely making the point that, to challenge either the existence of the list, or one's placement on it, you're going to need standing.

*Except perhaps in extreme cases, where there's a real, demonstrable, specific concern that someone wants to attack aviation, but there's a good reason that the person can't/shouldn't be arrested right now (i.e. an ongoing investigation into potential accomplices, etc.). Certainly, addition to such a list should require application to a genuine independent party to review the need for the addition (i.e. like FISA is intended to be, not the rubber stamp it actually is).

I may have it wrong but isn't this exactly what the UCLA is fighting to change in this particular case?

https://reason.com/blog/2015/04/14/d...n-somebodys-on

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"...

To meet the first prong of the Stigma or Stigma Plus test, the placement on the list has to be "public disclosure of a stigmatizing statement by the
government, the accuracy of which is contested."

As the NFL isn't public, I don't see how mere placement on the list (without that having some impact on the person) would meet either Stigma or Stigma Plus. I'd note that, in Latif, the plaintiffs' underlying complaint, and request for redress, was in regards to the redress process once their placement on the list had actually impacted their ability to travel, which the court did find deficient.

I don't see anything in Latif that would argue that someone who hasn't actually been prevented from doing something by their placement on the NFL would have standing to sue.

It Latif the defendant did not even contest the stigma part, they only contested the "plus" part, and their argument failed. And the stigma is only important in that it carries weight in the Mathews balancing test; the "plus" portion would be enough to trigger the test in its own right.

With regard to standing:
"A plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement. But '[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending that is enough.'
When contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute, 'it is not necessary that [the plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.' When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he 'should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.'" Babbitt v Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289 (internal citations omitted)

With the NFL, the only reason prospective plaintiffs needed to buy a ticket is because that was the only way they could discover they were on the list! Now one can find out simply by asking. If the government tells you you are on the list, you should have just as much standing to sue as if a gate agent tells you you are on the list. You need not buy a ticket to fly and risk your money; you need not barge past a gate agent and risk arrest. Simply submit a sworn statement saying "I'd like to buy a ticket to fly, I want to fly, but I know I can't because I'm on the list." Once you know you are on the NFL, the injury of being denied boarding and bearing the associated costs is "certain and impending".

Is this now the case? I hadn't realized that DHS has changed policy, and will now inform people whether or not they're on the list. If so, then that does change things in terms of standing, since someone can make the "would fly, but know that I can't" claim, without actually being denied flying.

Previously, when you couldn't find out whether you were on the NFL, then there was no restraint (until you were actually restrained), since you couldn't be discouraged from doing something that you didn't know that you were being discouraged from doing. In Babbitt, the farm workers already knew that the behavior they wanted to engage in was prohibited by law (a law they wanted to challenge).

You seem to be very familiar with the case, so maybe you can help me with something: at the time Latif was filed, the only way to know (or have good reason to believe) you were on the NFL was to be denied (at some stage) when attempting to travel. If just potentially being on the NFL gave one standing, why did the ACLU only use people who had been denied travel (and, in many cases, had been told it was because of the NFL) as plaintiffs? It would seem that anyone could have been a plaintiff.

Certainly agree. So long as the list remained secret, however, there was no way (as far as I can tell) to establish standing without actually being denied travel at some point.

The list being classified as secret is distinct from a listing of an individual. There are ways that people have found out they were aviation blacklisted by the USG despite not having found that out by trying to check-in/board a covered flight.

Lots more blacklisted people could be plaintiffs, but of the people who know they are blacklisted (despite having no criminal activity) not all are interested in pursuing litigation against the USG for having been blacklisted; nor do all those harmed (even by being denied boarding) have the means to pursue the matter (or to get others to pursue it) in court.

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"