In May 2011, the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants are officials at the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Terrorist Screening Center, which creates and controls the No Fly List. Still, the government refused to tell any of our clients why they had been barred from flying or whether they would be able to fly in the future. citizens or green-card holders stranded outside of the United States due to apparent inclusion on the No Fly List could secure clearance to fly to the United States on an approved flight. The government eventually let each of these plaintiffs return home, and instituted a repatriation procedure by which U.S. In August 2010, the ACLU petitioned the court for preliminary relief so that the plaintiffs stranded abroad could fly back to the United States. In 2010, several of our ten initial clients were stuck overseas, unable to return to their homes in the United States because they were on the No Fly List. The system still remains fundamentally unfair, and we will continue to seek opportunities to challenge it on behalf of people wrongly placed on the No Fly List and subjected to its harms. In October 2019, the Court of Appeals held that the No Fly List criteria were not impermissibly vague and the procedures the government applied to our clients were sufficient. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the No Fly List criteria as impermissibly vague and the new redress process as failing to provide fundamental due process required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. On behalf of five remaining plaintiffs, the ACLU and the ACLU of Southern California then appealed to the U.S. The district court nevertheless upheld that process. However, the government’s new redress process still fell far short of constitutional requirements because it denied our clients meaningful notice, evidence, and a hearing. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the list and possibly offer reasons.
As a result, the government announced in April 2015 that it would tell U.S. In a victory for our clients, the court ruled in 2014 that the government’s system for challenging placement on the No Fly List was unconstitutional. Their inability to fly severely affected their lives, including their ability to be with their families, go to school, and travel for work. (An additional three people later joined the suit.) These plaintiffs were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off of it. or over American airspace because they are on the government’s secretive No Fly List. citizens and permanent residents who could not fly to or from the U.S. In June 2010, we filed a legal challenge on behalf of ten U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
