SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
Oct 21, 2019
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."
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
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 from the outset was 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 and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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."
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."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.