Court Tells DOJ To Stop Stalling And Figure Out If People Suing Over No Fly List Can Get Off

from the pick-up-the-pace dept

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

(c) 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.



Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: aclu

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Tells DOJ To Stop Stalling And Figure Out If People Suing Over No Fly List Can Get Off”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
That One Guysays:

Don't need a magic ball to see where this will head...

I imagine the primary ‘defense’ will be invoking the almighty ‘National Security’, and hoping the judge is easily enough swayed for that to work.

Now if the judge refuses to buy it, and actually pushes, then things could get interesting, though I’m not sure exactly what the judge could do if the DOJ/DHS refuses to cooperate.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Don't need a magic ball to see where this will head...

I don’t know that my suggestion has adequate legal basis for being as broad as I’d like, but I’d suggest starting with finding the offending DOJ/DHS employees to be in contempt of court for failing to do as the court ordered. I’d particularly like to see it be the case that the contempt consideration looks at whether the government made a good faith effort to obey the spirit of the court’s order, rather than whether they complied with the letter of the order by just summarily declaring that the No Fly status looks good as-is based on shoddy/wrong evidence.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Don't need a magic ball to see where this will head...

The problem is that the Court doesn’t have guns. However, wouldn’t it be funny to have a bunch of civilians with guns walk into an Airport, demand the TSA to allow this person to pass pursuant to said court order, and get them on the plane?

If the local police show up, demand that they enforce the court order as well, or stand aside. Viva la revolution!

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't need a magic ball to see where this will head...

I think I know what you’re trying to say here, but technically the DoJ does not derive it’s authority from the courts. The DoJ is part of the executive branch, the courts are part of the judicial. So, while the courts are supposed to be a check on the actions of the DoJ, the DoJ actually derives it’s authority from the executive branch.

The legislative branch writes the laws that the DoJ helps to enforce, so all three branches work together in this effort (and are supposed to be a check for each other), but none of them derive their authority from the other.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowardsays:

Precedent?

Can we take this as a precedent that ‘STFU judge, it’s all about National Security, saving the children, because of the war on drugs and pedophiles (and a few things we aren’t allowed to even mention)’, no longer works?

Maybe they can use ‘You look like you have Ebola’ as their new excuse…oh wait!

Anonymoussays:

Another grand government scam about a blacklist no one can know about who is on, why they are one, nor with any way to challenge. Been a lot of that lately in varying forms. This government in the US is one I don’t recognize as having consent anymore. At least not from the voting public and that is the real issue. As long as it can be hidden, stonewalled, delayed from being fought in court, and delayed from being brought up to the public’s attention, things can continue as they are.

Times are indeed changing and the government is going from because we said so to panic mode one step at a time, with a foot drag between each.

Andyroosays:

Re: Re:

Could the Judge not award crazy financial rewards if the DHS does not provide the evidence or reasoning behind the no fly listings.And even award more every time the claimants are not allowed to fly or fine them every day the claimants are on the list.
Surely the DHS has to abide by a judges ruling no matter what and if they do not the Judge has the power to punish them, and even demand prison sentences for the top executives.

I can see Judges all over the country demanding to know if the DHS is above the law if this Judge is ignored.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, but he should target the Airlines, not the DHS. The DHS would refuse to pay and just say OMG terrorists.

If the judge were to order the names stricken from the no-fly list and forbid them from being re-added without his permission. He could fine the airlines $250,000 to each plaintiff each time an airline refuses to let one of them fly, then something would likely happen. The airlines have to pay, or the plaintiffs could start ceasing assets and auctioning them off.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The judge can award whatever they want, enforcing it is another matter, especially given one of the parties is the gorram DOJ. After all, who do you take the matter to if the DOJ refuses to comply? Another court, who the DOJ will proceed to also ignore?

That said I’d expect stonewalling and deflection rather than outright defiance and refusal, as while any number of government agencies have demonstrated that they believe themselves to be above the law, it’s in their best interest to keep it ‘unofficial’ as long as possible, so they and the rest of the government can keep pretending that everything is just fine and nothing needs investigation or fixing.

GuyFromVsays:

Non-Executive armed agencies?

This may have a more obvious answer that I’m overlooking…but although I think the Legislative branch has a small armed agency which it can call upon which answers to them and not the Executive (I remember it being part of the Army, yet separate from the USAF hierarchy..?). But what about the Judiciary…does it have any command or control over an armed agency that answers to it alone? Or is it supposed to be assumed that the Executive provides enforcement for the Judiciary as “in theory” there shouldn’t be a disconnect as the chain of responsibility and subservience? Because in reality, they obviously work at cross-purposes in scenarios such as this and seems short-sighted to NOT have Judiciary armed agents. I can see the DoJ should be one whole extension of the court’s will, but as evidenced lately…two branches of the US government are sorely lacking in firepower and brawn to back up their will when it collides with the will of the almighty Executive branch.

Coyne Tibbetssays:

Tilting at windmills

I don’t think the government will delay this time. They’ll take the people off the list, inform them of that, and the case will be closed.

Then the government will add the plaintiffs back onto the list (or onto another list, since the government has many of these lists) and the plaintiffs will have to start from scratch.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow