Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by the_watcher » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 12:52 AM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #56

jevinskie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. In the ruling, the Court "has concluded Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in the right to travel internationally by air". However, it goes further as they found that as per Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1979) the plaintiffs constitutional right to due process has been violated because: 1. not only do they have a right to travel internationally, being placed on the no-fly li…

This looks accurate. In this case, it looks like the court relied both on precedent, the Constitution, and finding a new right. For purposes of appeal, my guess is the decision is upheld, while declining to accept the first justification of the ruling. The second point the decision relies upon is a pretty strong one, in my opinion.

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

#92

Post by Aqueous » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 4:20 AM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #50

Aqueous wrote: post #25

I do not believe a judge currently has to authorize someone's placement on the No Fly List, which right away raises red flags. So the No Fly List is definitely unconstitutional as it is currently implemented, but I wonder if it would be replaced a constitutional implementation. For instance, if FBI, CIA, or NSA had to clear a probable cause legal hurdle in order to place someone on the list, and if a judge, rather th…

I'm pretty sure such a constitutional implementation already exists: namely, they can just revoke your passport, which I think has to go through due process.

You don't need a passport to get on a domestic flight, though - so there's a blind spot for existing law.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 9:43 AM UTC

the_watcher wrote: post #89

chris_wot wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's to do with the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. And it's not that the plaintiffs were deprived of liberty, it was that they were deprived of liberty without due process of law . To this the Court has found that there was no due process, therefore the no-fly list - as it stands now - violates the United States Constitution.

That's incorrect if the linked article is correctly quoting the binding portion of the decision. If the decision relies on a right to travel, it's almost certainly going to rely on the 1st Amendment. If what I suspect happened, which is the article quoted dicta addressing issues raised, but not necessary to the ruling, then you are correct, it's entirely a due process issue. The former is highly vulnerable to appeal,…

[deleted]