Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#71

Post by the_watcher »

chris_wot wrote: post #60
the_watcher wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling does seem to imply that, however, on appeal, that will almost certainly be clarified. No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly defined that it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who can and cannot fly. The ruling will likely be clarified for precedent to mean that the right to due process includes a right to quickly and effectively contest designations by government ag…

There's nothing implied. The Court flat out says that denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty.

Does anyone have a link to the actual decision? Upon rereading, the article certainly makes it seem as though the crux of the ruling was around a denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty, but were I the appealing attorney, that would be fantastic news. That's a major change in the permissiveness of the word liberty, and would open up infinite slippery slope arguments. I'd bet on that logic failing on appeal.

However, if the decision relies on other grounds (either solely or in addition to), then I doubt it is overturned. While the Reuters article presents this as legally binding, if the quotes occurred in dicta (discussion of the facts and implications of the case that are not legally binding, as they are not grounded in case or black letter law), then it's not binding, and the ruling can be upheld without addressing the redefinition of liberty.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#72

Post by chris_wot »

the_watcher wrote: post #71
chris_wot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing implied. The Court flat out says that denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty.

Does anyone have a link to the actual decision? Upon rereading, the article certainly makes it seem as though the crux of the ruling was around a denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty, but were I the appealing attorney, that would be fantastic news. That's a major change in the permissiveness of the word liberty, and would open up infinite slippery slope arguments. I'd bet on that logic faili…

Find it here. Deprivation of liberty is not the whole issue, it was a problem with lack of due process, of which deprivation of liberty is but one part.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold...

I summarised the case in this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7940334

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#74

Post by blahedo »

maxerickson wrote: post #39
higherpurpose wrote: post #3

Now if only we'd get a similar ruling for no-warrant "border" searches, where border can mean tens of miles from the actual border.

That happened in the 1970s: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/case.htm... Then the ability to simply stop vehicles near the border was curtailed (the ruling still allows a stop given specific information): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/

Curtailed? I can personally confirm that as of just a few years ago, all vehicles passing various roadblocks in southern Arizona and New Mexico (including one across an entire interstate) are stopped and questioned. I assume this continues today.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#75

Post by nickff »

lmkg wrote: post #63
jfoutz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great big IANAL here, but isn't due process something only the judicial branch can do? Do the police (i mean, the executive branch) get to strip liberties all willy nilly, and then you have to go to court to get those liberties restored? AFAIK, it's not a judge that orders the addition to the no fly list, it's someone in the executive branch.

Due process is a guarantee made to citizens. The form it takes or method it is delivered by is not overly specific, and there is nothing about it that mandates it be scoped to one particular branch of government. If it's the executive branch handing down restrictions of liberty, well then I guess it's the executive branch that is responsible for ensuring due process.

The courts always have a role to play when another branch has overstepped its powers, such as is the case here.[1] The administration must not abridge any rights, but it does so frequently (and is not held 'responsible' in any meaningful way), when this is the case, the judicial branch is responsible to ensure that the person affected does not suffer for it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause#Procedural_d...

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#76

Post by zhengyi13 »

revelation wrote: post #47
middleclick wrote: post #6

"The 13 plaintiffs - four of them veterans of the U.S. military - deny they have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight." This truly fits the definition of a Kafkaesque system -- you are put on a list and you are denied justice and never told what your crime is. Great work by the ACLU.

Well, in many cases there is no crime . Given the ridiculous amount of people on the list and the way the form is designed, a large number will be on there due to a "mistake" in filling out the form. Theres an excerpt of the form here: http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/vgtof-... Notice how you have to check the box to indicate someone is not to be added to the list. It is completely counter-intuit…

Apart from the cognitive difficulties this creates, forcing you to check the box means the default is to add someone to the no-fly list (see Dan Ariely's research)

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#77

Post by jevinskie »

chadgeidel wrote: post #13
jevinskie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

I always assumed the right was implicit. (Potentially ignorant US citizen here)

Well it gets muddy when it isn't just walking around. For instance, most states require that you consent to a breathalyzer test or your license is revoked. Somehow the Fourth didn't apply in those cases.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#78

Post by maxerickson »

blahedo wrote: post #74
maxerickson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That happened in the 1970s: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/case.htm... Then the ability to simply stop vehicles near the border was curtailed (the ruling still allows a stop given specific information): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/

Curtailed? I can personally confirm that as of just a few years ago, all vehicles passing various roadblocks in southern Arizona and New Mexico (including one across an entire interstate) are stopped and questioned. I assume this continues today.

Did those check points match the ACLU description or were they more like a temporary border stop?

Prior to that second case, the border patrol asserted the right to make random stops because they suspected someone in the car was Mexican. The Supreme Court decided they couldn't do that, but they are careful to say that the decision doesn't apply to the border and "functional equivalents".

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#79

Post by [deleted] »

lmkg wrote: post #63
jfoutz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great big IANAL here, but isn't due process something only the judicial branch can do? Do the police (i mean, the executive branch) get to strip liberties all willy nilly, and then you have to go to court to get those liberties restored? AFAIK, it's not a judge that orders the addition to the no fly list, it's someone in the executive branch.

Due process is a guarantee made to citizens. The form it takes or method it is delivered by is not overly specific, and there is nothing about it that mandates it be scoped to one particular branch of government. If it's the executive branch handing down restrictions of liberty, well then I guess it's the executive branch that is responsible for ensuring due process.

[deleted]

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#80

Post by enraged_camel »

The title is a bit misleading. The judge did not rule that the No Fly List itself is unconstitutional. The government can still have such a list and put you on it. The only difference is that they now have to notify people as such and provide reasons as well as easy ways to appeal your inclusion.

I find this to be a minor victory at best. In my opinion, the elephant in the room is that there is a No Fly List in the first place. If someone is deemed so dangerous that they should not be allowed to get on an airplane, they should be in prison. After all, that's one reason why we have prisons: to keep dangerous people away from society. What can such people do on an airplane that they can't do on a bus or a train?

Post reply on HN