Federal Judge Rules People on No-Fly List Have a Constitutional Right to TravelNusrat Choudhury We represent 13 Americans, including four military veterans, who are blacklisted from flying. At oral argument in June on motions for partial summary judgment, we asked the court to find that the government violated our clients Fifth Amendment right to due process by barring them from flying over U.S. airspace and smearing them as suspected terrorists without giving them any after-the-fact explanation or a hearing at which to clear their names. The courts opinion recognizes for the first time that inclusion on the No-Fly List is a draconian sanction that severely impacts peoples constitutionally-protected liberties. It rejected the governments argument that No-Fly list placement was merely a restriction on the most convenient means of international travel. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation. According to the court, placement on the No-Fly List is like the revocation of a passport because both actions severely burden the right to international travel and give rise to a constitutional right to procedural due process: The court also found that the governments inclusion of our clients on the No-Fly List smeared them as suspected terrorists and altered their ability to lawfully board planes, resulting in injury to another constitutionally-protected right: freedom from reputational harm. The importance of these rulings is clear. Because inclusion on the No-Fly List harms our clients liberty interests in travel and reputation, due process requires the government to provide them an explanation and a hearing to correct the mistakes that led to their inclusion. But under the governments Glomar policy, it refuses to provide any information confirming or denying that our clients are on the list, let alone an after-the-fact explanation and hearing. The court has asked the ACLU and the government for more information about the No-Fly List redress procedure to help it decide the ultimate question of whether that system violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process. We are confident the court will recognize that the governments Glomar policy of refusing even to confirm or deny our clients No-Fly List status (much less actually providing the reasons for their inclusion in the list) is fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional. Learn more about the no-fly list and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow ACLU on Twitter, and like ACLU on Facebook. 