DHS lost a round
Apr 15, 2015 | 5:44 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
DHS lost a round
https://reason.com/blog/2015/04/14/d...n-somebodys-on
The federal government has been sued over this reversal of due process and has been losing. The government has been ordered to set up a more transparent system for people to challenge inclusion on the list.
Apr 15, 2015 | 12:34 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
ACLU is right to take this back to court.
Apr 15, 2015 | 12:48 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
So, until you're denied boarding, being on the no-fly list hasn't harmed you, so you have no grounds to sue.
That said, the current situation, where people are denied boarding, but the gov't refuses to tell them whether or not it's because they're on the no-fly list, is absurd.
Once you're denied boarding, you have been harmed, and should have the right to sue. It becomes impossible to sue to get off the no-fly list if you can't even confirm you're on it in the first place.
Apr 15, 2015 | 12:51 pm
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 48,885
That's not a surprising provision. To sue (for anything) you need to have standing - in other words, you need have been harmed in some demonstrable way. This is a fundamental legal principle.
So, until you're denied boarding, being on the no-fly list hasn't harmed you, so you have no grounds to sue.
That said, the current situation, where people are denied boarding, but the gov't refuses to tell them whether or not it's because they're on the no-fly list, is absurd.
Once you're denied boarding, you have been harmed, and should have the right to sue. It becomes impossible to sue to get off the no-fly list if you can't even confirm you're on it in the first place.
So, until you're denied boarding, being on the no-fly list hasn't harmed you, so you have no grounds to sue.
That said, the current situation, where people are denied boarding, but the gov't refuses to tell them whether or not it's because they're on the no-fly list, is absurd.
Once you're denied boarding, you have been harmed, and should have the right to sue. It becomes impossible to sue to get off the no-fly list if you can't even confirm you're on it in the first place.
Apr 15, 2015 | 1:32 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
That's not a surprising provision. To sue (for anything) you need to have standing - in other words, you need have been harmed in some demonstrable way. This is a fundamental legal principle.
So, until you're denied boarding, being on the no-fly list hasn't harmed you, so you have no grounds to sue.
That said, the current situation, where people are denied boarding, but the gov't refuses to tell them whether or not it's because they're on the no-fly list, is absurd.
Once you're denied boarding, you have been harmed, and should have the right to sue. It becomes impossible to sue to get off the no-fly list if you can't even confirm you're on it in the first place.
So, until you're denied boarding, being on the no-fly list hasn't harmed you, so you have no grounds to sue.
That said, the current situation, where people are denied boarding, but the gov't refuses to tell them whether or not it's because they're on the no-fly list, is absurd.
Once you're denied boarding, you have been harmed, and should have the right to sue. It becomes impossible to sue to get off the no-fly list if you can't even confirm you're on it in the first place.
If a person is to dangerous to fly then charge them with a crime and let the courts sort it out.
Apr 15, 2015 | 1:49 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Apr 15, 2015 | 1:51 pm
#7
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Apr 15, 2015 | 2:58 pm
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
The blacklist reference goes back to at least the time of England's King Charles the Second who decided that under standing legal principles officials needed to be punished (read: "killed") for engaging in regicide (of his father). Being killed certainly ends the killed ones' freedom of movement.
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 15, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Apr 15, 2015 | 2:58 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
Apr 15, 2015 | 3:56 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,380
Apr 15, 2015 | 4:05 pm
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Not something I'd cite in a brief, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
Apr 15, 2015 | 4:15 pm
#12
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
You'll notice that in the cases that have thus far been successful (i.e. Latif v Holder), the plaintiffs had been denied boarding.
Last edited by cestmoi123; Apr 15, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Apr 15, 2015 | 4:41 pm
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
That a "successful case" against being blacklisted involved being denied boarding does not mean that the only form of harm (from being blacklisted) requires being denied check-in/boarding. It may just be an easier case to win due to all the scam "secrecy" invocations getting in the way of as easily winning cases about the blacklisting-caused harm that may precede or otherwise be independent of being denied boarding/check-in by an airline.
Apr 15, 2015 | 4:45 pm
#14
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,430
On the other hand, for criminal prosecution, intent is enough, even if the attempt to harm has failed.
Apr 15, 2015 | 4:55 pm
#15
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
If a car dealership decides that, if you ever bring your car in for service, they're going to use orange juice instead of motor oil, and you never know that they have that plan, and you never take your car in for service, you haven't been harmed in any way.