Court Tells DOJ To Stop Stalling In Regards To No-Fly Lists

[Mike]

Back in June, we wrote about an important ruling from a court in Oregon that found the process of getting off the Homeland Security "no fly list" to be unconstitutional. The government has continued to try to stall over this, but the judge has basically told the Justice Department to speed things up and to tell the plaintiffs whether or not they're still on the list, so that further legal action can move forward, if necessary (and, yes, it's likely necessary). From the official ruling:

No later than October 10, 2014, Defendant shall identify to the Court and Plaintiffs which Plaintiffs, if any, will not be precluded as of that date from boarding a commercial aircraft flying over United States airspace.

The court tells the US government that as soon as it realizes any of the plaintiffs shouldn't be on the list it needs to inform them of that fact, and for those that remain on the list, it needs to give a detailed reason:

If Defendants determine after the interim substantive review of a Plaintiff's status that such Plaintiff is not presently eligible to fly over United States airspace, Defendants shall promptly and consistent with the Court's Opinion and Order of June 24, 2014:

(a) give such Plaintiff notice of that determination;

(b) give such Plaintiff an explanation of the reasons for that determination sufficient to permit the Plaintiff to provide Defendants relevant information responsive to such reasons; and

© consider any such responsive information provided before completing the substantive reconsideration of such Plaintiff's DHS TRIP redress inquiry as ordered herein.

It's pretty clear the judge finds the whole no fly list situation to be ridiculous, and the fact that these people haven't been able to fly for years with no recourse problematic:

The Court notes the importance, complexity, and sensitivity of the issues raised and the remedies to be implemented in this matter preclude proceeding with undue haste. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that each Plaintiff has presumably been prevented from flying internationally and otherwise over United States airspace during the four years this matter has been pending, the Court concludes the time has come to resolve the claims of each Plaintiff on an individualized basis as soon as practicable.

It seems entirely likely that the DOJ and DHS will continue to try to stall and delay, but Judge Anna Brown makes it fairly clear in her ruling that she's not interested in stalling attempts and will not treat them kindly.

Originally Published: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:32:06 GMT
source

[Mike]

Last week, we wrote about Judge Anna Brown telling the DOJ to quit stalling and to tell a list of plaintiffs whether or not they were on the no fly list. This was a followup to her earlier ruling, noting that the process to get off of the list was unconstitutional. While a different court had ordered the US government to make sure that Rahinah Ibrahim was off the list in an earlier case (though she's been kept on another list), this was the first time that the court had directly ordered the US government to reveal to people whether or not they were on the list.

Late on Friday, the government sent a short letter to the ACLU, telling seven of the plaintiffs in the case that they were "not currently on the No Fly List as of the date of this letter."

From the ACLU:

Today’s letter from the government informed the seven plaintiffs that they “are not currently on the No Fly List.” One of the plaintiffs notified was Abe Mashal, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and dog trainer who suffered professionally and personally when he could not travel far from his home in Illinois.

“More than four years ago, I was denied boarding at an airport, surrounded by TSA agents, and questioned by the FBI,” said Mashal. “That day, many freedoms that I took for granted were robbed from me. I was never told why this happened, whether I was officially on the list, or what I could do to get my freedoms back. Now, I can resume working for clients who are beyond driving distance. I can attend weddings, graduations, and funerals that were too far away to reach by car or train. I can travel with my family to Hawaii, Jamaica, or anywhere else on vacation. Today, I learned I have my freedoms back."

It's pretty crazy the lengths Mashal had to go to get his freedoms "back."

The government still needs to respond to the other six plaintiffs in the case who it did not name in this letter -- though the fact that they were not named suggests they are still on the no fly list. The government has a bit more time with those people, since it needs to also provide some sort of explanation, and allow those people to effectively appeal their status on the list.

Originally Published: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:02:15 GMT
source