Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Rejecting Challenge to No Fly List, Federal Appeals Court Leaves Men Charged With No Crime 'In an Indefinite Kafkaesque Nightmare'

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four U.S. citizens.

Andrea Germanos

A ruling by a federal court Monday drew the ire of the ACLU after siding with the U.S. government and rejecting a challenge brought by four U.S. citizens over their inclusion on the No Fly List, thus leaving the men, according to the civil liberties group, "in an indefinite Kafkaesque nightmare."

Inclusion on the secret database—which represents part of the government's terrorism watchlisting system—means a person is blacklisted as a suspected terrorist and banned from flying into, within, and from the United States.

While the government in 2015 put in place a court-order revised redress system, the ACLU says that system falls short because it deprives people of a fair process to dispute their placement. The group therefore continued its legal challenge.

The lower court that found the new system satisfied constitutional requirements, said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, erred. "The court largely rested its incorrect conclusion on a novel ground—that 'undue risk to national security' justified the government's secrecy and deficient process. But no other court has ever permitted blanket assertions of national security risk, untethered to specific justifications that courts then adjudicate, to legitimize a process so flawed," Shamsi wrote earlier this month.

The Portland, Oregon-based federal appeals court, however, saw things differently. Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher wrote

The panel held that the district court properly rejected plaintiffs' as-applied vagueness challenges. The panel determined that the No Fly List criteria are not impermissibly vague merely because they require a prediction of future criminal conduct, or because they do not delineate what factors are relevant to that determination. The panel held that the criteria are "reasonably clear," in their application to the specific conduct alleged in this case, which includes, for one or more plaintiffs, associating with and financing terrorists, training with militant groups overseas, and advocating terrorist violence. Furthermore, the criteria are not so standardless that they invite arbitrary enforcement, at least as applied to plaintiffs. Because the panel concluded the No Fly List criteria were not vague as applied, it declined to reach plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenges...

[The panel] concluded that the procedures provided to plaintiffs were constitutionally sufficient, or that any error was nonprejudicial. The panel determined that given the national security concerns at issue, and with the exceptions noted, the government had taken  reasonable measures to ensure basic fairness to the plaintiffs and followed procedures reasonably designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of plaintiffs' liberty.

The ruling, Shamsi said Monday, "lets the government hide behind overblown secrecy claims to deny our clients' constitutional right to due process."

"Our clients have been unable to fly to visit family, pursue job opportunities, or fulfill religious obligations for over nine years based on vague criteria, secret evidence, and unreliable government predictions. These citizens have never been charged with a crime and asked for fair notice and a fair process to clear their names and regain rights most Americans take for granted."

"Instead," she continued, "the court has left them trapped in an indefinite Kafkaesque nightmare."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

New Filing Reveals Sinema Pads Campaign Coffers With More Pharma and Finance Funds

"This is what someone who's bought and paid for looks like."

Brett Wilkins ·


'We're Not Stopping': Weeklong D.C. Climate Protests End With 650+ Arrests, Vows to Fight On

"There is no other planet to escape to. Water is life... They need to listen to the youth. They need to hear us speak our cries."

Brett Wilkins ·



Ousted by AOC, Joe Crowley Now Lobbying Against Tax Hikes on Corporate Giants

The former chair of the House Democratic Caucus once called the GOP's 2017 tax law a "scam," but now he's collaborating with Wall Street to undermine attempts at progressive reform.

Kenny Stancil ·


'Corporate Fraud at Its Worst': J&J Hides Behind Bankruptcy Amid Baby Powder Lawsuits

"Here we go again," said Elizabeth Warren. "Another giant corporation is abusing our bankruptcy system."

Julia Conley ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo