Latif, et al. v. Holder, et al. - ACLU Challenge to Government No Fly List
In June 2010, the ACLU and its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California, and New Mexico filed a legal challenge on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who cannot fly to or from the U.S. or over American airspace because they are on the government’s secretive No Fly List (an additional three people have since joined the suit). The plaintiffs, who include four U.S. military veterans, have never been told why they are on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it. Being unable to fly has severely affected their lives, including their ability to be with their families, go to school, and travel for work. In August 2013, the court agreed with the ACLU that constitutional rights are at stake when the government puts Americans on the No Fly List. In the same ruling, the court asked the ACLU and the government to submit additional information about the No Fly List redress procedure to help the court decide whether the process as a whole violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The additional information has been submitted, and oral argument in the case was held on March 17.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of:
|Ibraheim (Abe) Mashal, a U.S. citizen and veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, is a traveling dog trainer and father of three. He is unable to serve clients who are not within driving distance of his Illinois home because he is unable to board a plane.|
|Ayman Latif, a U.S. citizen and disabled Marine veteran.|
|Raymond Earl Knaeble, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Army veteran.|
|Steven Washburn, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Air Force veteran who was prevented from flying from Europe to the United States or Mexico; he eventually flew to Brazil, and from there to Mexico, where he was detained and finally escorted across the border by U.S. officials.|
|Abdullatif Muthanna and Nagib Ali Ghaleb, two American citizens who were prevented from flying home to the United States after visiting family members in Yemen.|
|Faisal Nabin Kashem, Elias Mustafa Mohamed, and Mashaal Rana, three American citizens who were prevented from flying home to the United States after studying abroad in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.|
|Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, a U.S. citizen and resident of Portland, Oregon who was prevented from flying to visit his daughter who was in high school in Dubai at the time.|
|Stephen Persaud, Amir Meshal, and Salah Ali Ahmed, three American citzens who were prevented from boarding domestic flights.|
Several of our clients were stuck overseas, unable to return to their homes in the United States because they were on the No Fly List. In August 2010, the ACLU petitioned the court for preliminary relief so that the plaintiffs stranded abroad could fly back to the U.S. The government eventually let each of these plaintiffs return home. It also instituted a repatriation procedure by which U.S. citizens or green-card holders stranded outside of the United States due to apparent inclusion on the No Fly List can secure clearance to fly to the United States on an approved flight. Still, the government refused to tell our clients why they hadn’t been able to fly back in the first place or whether they would be able to fly in the future.
The lawsuit aims to remedy this failure. It was filed against officials at the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Terrorist Screening Center, which creates and controls the No Fly List. In May 2011, the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the lawsuit should have been filed against the Transportation Security Administration, and that the relief the plaintiffs sought could only come from a federal appellate court. The ACLU appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, unanimously reversed the district court’s decision and held that the case should go forward in district court, where it now proceeds.
In a motion for partial summary judgment, the ACLU asked the court to rule that the inadequate redress process for people on the list violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. The court partially granted that motion in August 2013, holding that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from air travel. Still pending is the court’s decision whether the redress procedures violate the Constitution’s due process guarantee.
Today, the government's No Fly List consists of thousands of people who have been barred altogether from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest. It is unconstitutional for the government to put people on secret lists and deny them the right to travel without even basic due process. We are continuing to press the court for a meaningful, fair process through which our clients can clear their name.