'Kafkaesque' No-Fly List Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge
In landmark case, judge rules secretive list violate rights to due process and travel by air
In a watershed decision, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the 'No-Fly' list--which bans tens of thousands of people suspected of 'terrorism' from boarding flights--is unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process and travel by air.
The decision was heralded by plaintiffs in the case, which was brought four years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 13 Muslim-Americans who were placed on the list with no explanation why or avenue for redress.
"I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us," said plaintiff Sheikh Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, who is the imam of a Portland, Oregon Mosque, in a press statement. "Finally I will be able to challenge whatever incorrect information the government has been using to stigmatize me and keep me from flying."
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, based in Portland, Oregon, wrote in her decision that "for many international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many, international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society."
She continued, "[W]ithout proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the No-Fly List. ... [T]he absence of any meaningful procedures to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process."
Brown did not eradicate the list altogether, but ordered the U.S. government to create a "new process" that allows for appeals and redress. She also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to tell the plaintiffs why they are on the list and give them an opportunity to clear their names.
Created in 2003 in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the No-Fly list, as of 2012, included over 21,000 people, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. People placed on this list are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to appeal.
The No-Fly list, however, is not the only one of its kind. The U.S. Terrorist Watch List, also created in 2003, currently includes up to one million people, who are listed based on secret evidence and denied the right to due process.
In addition to the ACLU case, others have challenged the No-Fly list, including four Muslim-American men who charged in another lawsuit filed in April that they were placed on the list as retaliation for refusing to inform and spy on their communities.
According to ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, Tuesday's ruling "benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No-Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship."
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a watershed decision, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the 'No-Fly' list--which bans tens of thousands of people suspected of 'terrorism' from boarding flights--is unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process and travel by air.
The decision was heralded by plaintiffs in the case, which was brought four years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 13 Muslim-Americans who were placed on the list with no explanation why or avenue for redress.
"I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us," said plaintiff Sheikh Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, who is the imam of a Portland, Oregon Mosque, in a press statement. "Finally I will be able to challenge whatever incorrect information the government has been using to stigmatize me and keep me from flying."
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, based in Portland, Oregon, wrote in her decision that "for many international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many, international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society."
She continued, "[W]ithout proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the No-Fly List. ... [T]he absence of any meaningful procedures to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process."
Brown did not eradicate the list altogether, but ordered the U.S. government to create a "new process" that allows for appeals and redress. She also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to tell the plaintiffs why they are on the list and give them an opportunity to clear their names.
Created in 2003 in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the No-Fly list, as of 2012, included over 21,000 people, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. People placed on this list are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to appeal.
The No-Fly list, however, is not the only one of its kind. The U.S. Terrorist Watch List, also created in 2003, currently includes up to one million people, who are listed based on secret evidence and denied the right to due process.
In addition to the ACLU case, others have challenged the No-Fly list, including four Muslim-American men who charged in another lawsuit filed in April that they were placed on the list as retaliation for refusing to inform and spy on their communities.
According to ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, Tuesday's ruling "benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No-Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship."
_____________________
In a watershed decision, a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the 'No-Fly' list--which bans tens of thousands of people suspected of 'terrorism' from boarding flights--is unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process and travel by air.
The decision was heralded by plaintiffs in the case, which was brought four years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 13 Muslim-Americans who were placed on the list with no explanation why or avenue for redress.
"I have been prevented by the government from traveling to visit my family members and fulfill religious obligations for years, and it has had a devastating impact on all of us," said plaintiff Sheikh Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, who is the imam of a Portland, Oregon Mosque, in a press statement. "Finally I will be able to challenge whatever incorrect information the government has been using to stigmatize me and keep me from flying."
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, based in Portland, Oregon, wrote in her decision that "for many international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many, international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society."
She continued, "[W]ithout proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the No-Fly List. ... [T]he absence of any meaningful procedures to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process."
Brown did not eradicate the list altogether, but ordered the U.S. government to create a "new process" that allows for appeals and redress. She also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to tell the plaintiffs why they are on the list and give them an opportunity to clear their names.
Created in 2003 in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the No-Fly list, as of 2012, included over 21,000 people, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. People placed on this list are not told why or given a meaningful opportunity to appeal.
The No-Fly list, however, is not the only one of its kind. The U.S. Terrorist Watch List, also created in 2003, currently includes up to one million people, who are listed based on secret evidence and denied the right to due process.
In addition to the ACLU case, others have challenged the No-Fly list, including four Muslim-American men who charged in another lawsuit filed in April that they were placed on the list as retaliation for refusing to inform and spy on their communities.
According to ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, Tuesday's ruling "benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No-Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship."
_____________________