The importance of fairness that must be extended to citizens by the federal government under the Fifth Amendment was emphasized when a federal judge in Oregon ruled the No-Fly List to be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the traveling public. The government's interest in preventing terrorism in the skies is the reason for the list but its practical application needs an overhaul, the judge properly determined. .
Established after the horror of the 9/11 attacks, the No-Fly List contained an unknown number but large amount of names in the thousands. People on the list were not allowed to fly on commercial aircraft in the U.S. or to other countries. One report said there were 20,000 names on the list, with 500 being citizens of the U.S.
The concern the judge had was that people on the list had no meaningful way to learn information about why they are on the list or to offer information on why their name should not be included because of error or some other reason.
The ruling does not mean the list will end, just that the government needs to develop better procedures to allow people to challenge the reason why they are on it, the Washington Post noted.
If there is unclassified information on why a person's name is on the list, that must be disclosed. If there is classified information, it can be disclosed to an attorney with a security clearance.
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown said information to prospective travelers on why they were on the list was "wholly ineffective" and that there was a "high risk of erroneous deprivation" of rights under the system.
Even a compelling government interest like the safety of the skies must be balanced with with the constitutional rights of citizens, the judge noted.
Obviously, there are some people who because of terrorist activities should be on the list. But the more balanced approach of allowing people the opportunity to challenge why they are on the list is welcome.