duniawala

Judge rules air travel is a constitutionally protected right

http://bit.ly/14ArnGg

In my opinion it is time to take a second look at the process of being put on a no fly list where even babies are banned. This needs to be more equitable where people who are falsely accused get a right to appeal their case. Has the government gone too far? Your thoughts.

obscure2k

Moving thread to Travel News.
Obscure2k
TravelBuzz Moderator

Loose Cannon

I hope this sticks and I hope the courts get up enough gumption to rule the no-fly list unconstitutional on its face.

Kagehitokiri

what exactly was ruled on, and does it have to go to circuit/supreme?

Sea-Wolf

In effect, this is all that has been ruled on at this stage and the government could appeal it to the circuit courts and onwards to the supreme court. However they're not likely to do that until the whole package of claims have been ruled on. This ruling by itself doesn't really mean much, however it's likely to mean that the goverment will not prevail on its other arguments in the case. Basically they're arguing that they can do whatever they want with the no-fly list and that a person on it doesn't have a right to contest that on the merits.

When someone appeals their inclusion the government has a review process that is triggered, the person requesting the review is informed when the review is completed, but not the outcome or why. The only way to find out if their appeal was successful is to buy an air ticket and attempt to board a flight. The ACLU is arguing that due process is being violated, but to support that argument they needed to demonstrate that there was a right to air travel specifically, not just travel in general. The government was not contesting a right to travel (that's already been well established) just that there was no right to a particular mode of travel, so unless they cut off all access to travel, there was no problem. The court disagreed with the government's argument.