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.”
Judge Rules for Plaintiff in No-Fly Case
(Image: University Putra Malaysia)