Five years ago, 13 United States citizens, aided by counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit to challenge their suspected placement on the no-fly list. The plaintiffs raised both procedural and substantive due process challenges. Four years later, in June 2014, they prevailed on their initial claims—the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the government’s redress procedures violated the plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights. Latif v. Holder, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Or. 2014). The court directed the government to adopt a new process that would inform the plaintiffs of their status on the no-fly list and permit them to offer evidence challenging their placement on the list. By January 2015, the government had issued letters to each of the plaintiffs with an update on their status, had removed 7 of the 13 plaintiffs from the list, and had provided the remaining plaintiffs with notice of some (though not all) of the reasons for their continued inclusion on the list. Although the points of contention have narrowed since the case was first filed, the most significant issues in the case are yet to be resolved: Plaintiffs continue to challenge the revised travel procedure on both substantive and procedural due process grounds.
Premium Content For:
- Litigation Section