Common sense and the Constitution have prevailed in a U.S. District Court in Oregon, where a federal judge has ruled that the government's procedures for managing its no-fly list violate travelers' due process rights and must be changed.
The ruling came in a 4-year-old case involving efforts by 13 travelers who were denied boarding to have their names removed from the list. The Department of Homeland Security has a procedure for doing that, called the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), but Judge Anna Brown ruled that the procedure is inadequate and must be changed.
The ruling is Brown's second major finding in the case. Last year, she ruled that the plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected right to fly, at least in international markets where there are no feasible alternatives.
She went on to conclude that this right could be infringed by their inclusion on the no-fly list. That made it all the more important that the redress procedures be fair and effective.
Last month, she found that they were not. People on the list are never told they are on the list, nor are they ever told why, which makes it impossible for them to contest their inclusion with factual evidence.
They can file a TRIP request, which triggers a government review, but when the review is complete, the government merely tells the requester that the review is complete, never confirming if their status has changed.
In some cases, people don't know the outcome of their TRIP review until they buy a ticket, go to the airport and try to board.
Common sense has been telling us that this system needs to change. Now, thankfully, Judge Brown says that the Constitution tells us the same thing.