Despite a series of disgraceful
dirty tricks,
the TSA has lost its case against Dr Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian
academic who had been wrongly put on the no-fly list. The DHS engaged in
witness tampering (denying Dr Ibrahim and her witnesses access to the
courtroom by putting them on the no-fly list) and argued that neither Dr
Ibrahim nor her lawyers should be allowed to see the evidence against
her (because terrorism).
Lowering the Bar does a
great job of summing up the ruling,
which held the no-fly list unconstitutional because citizens are
"entitled to a remedy that requires the government to correct its lists
and records... and to certify under oath that such correction(s) have
been made."
*
The plaintiff has standing to challenge the no-fly listing and
practices, and all of the government's arguments to the contrary are
overruled.
*
Once a plaintiff shows "concrete, reviewable adverse government
action" (i.e. not being allowed to fly) has resulted from a government
error, she is entitled to a remedy that requires the government to
correct its lists and records "and to certify under oath that such
correction(s) have been made."
*
Because the government's current administrative remedies, such as they are, don't do this, they are unconstitutional.
*
He ordered the government to provide that remedy here (take
plaintiff off the list and certify under oath that it did so), and/or to
disclose whether she is in fact on or off the list. (As you may recall,
the government refuses to tell people whether they are on the list or
not.)
*
Presumably she is or will soon be off it, because "the government
concedes [as it has for a while now] that plaintiff is not a threat to
our national security."
No comments:
Post a Comment