ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List Process Is Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Oregon says the process surrounding the federal government’s “no-fly list” is unconstitutional.

Specifically, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said the process doesn’t give Americans on the list an effective way to challenge their inclusion. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here an article on

Judge: No-fly list violated constitutional rights

The U.S. government deprived 13 people on its no-fly list of their constitutional right to travel and gave them no adequate way to challenge their placement on the list, a federal judge said Tuesday in the nation’s first ruling finding the no-fly list redress procedures unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown’s decision says the procedures lack a meaningful mechanism for people to challenge their placement on the list.

Seeing this, it has popped into my head that similar due-process arguments might be used to force California to afford registrants a meaningful opportunity to get removed from the registry.

And as for international travel by registrants here are a couple of gems from judge Brown’s 65-page ruling:
“The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society,”
“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel,” Brown said.

Brunello, yes, your keyword this is “meaningful.” The impossible standard being set for a certificate of rehabilitation of a registrant is definitely now a “meaningful opportunity” to get out from under registration for those who the certificate would relive of that opportunity. And a pardon definitely is not for those who need a pard in order to stop registering. In fact, the reason they set those extraordinarily high standards is to make it so people could not get out from under registration — yet still have an argument that they could, as fake an argument as that is. The legal… Read more »

I heard about this on the news this afternoon and I’m glad you posted your entry. This is about equal protection under the law; ex post facto punishment; the presumption of guilt; distorted statistics; fear mongering; – you name it and it is a free ride for lawmakers at this point with very few of the judiciary with the intestinal fortitude to move off dead center. The lack of a mechanism is what legislators here have accomplished. That there can be no certificate of of rehabilitation is the most outlandish of anything. How can there be any sense in any… Read more »

I had been sent a link (by a colleague) to that effect immediately before I read your comment, so have not had much time to ponder its applicability to us. It may well offer the RSO some relief although I would not be surprised to see, judicially “carved-out”, as it were, an exception for “sex offenders” much in the same way that in an earlier ruling, a judge had found that the more intrusive level of digital device searching, when conducted against most travelers, was unjustifiable but WAS justifiable when carried out against “sex offenders” since their (sex offender’s) status,… Read more »

One other point: Who now is in possession of this (criminal record) data? Has it already been “given” to Interpol and “given” to other countries or must it be accessed “afresh” from the U.S. each time a traveler attempts to enter a particular country? I ask this because, if it IS successfully challenged in a U.S. court, does that mean that all of the data previously shared with other countries LEAVES THEIR possession, too? Obviously, information which they already OWN, as such, is NOT effected by a U.S. judicial finding, no matter which way such a ruling might go. Is… Read more »

Especially not Barack Obama

If I remember my history, the late 30’s was when Hitler halted all travel out of Germany and German held areas by all of their Jew “citizens”?

I was just coming here to post this ruling myself, but you guys beat me to it. I will simply add the link to the Los Angeles Times story on it: Key info there to work this to the benefit of registrants, who are now being effectively blocked from traveling to other countries by the US sending info that you are a registrant (and who knows who other info, which might or might not even be accurate) to other countries when you board the plane (and you don’t even find out until AFTER you arrive, are rejected and sent… Read more »

Wow, SCOTUS is on a roll of positivism…

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws

Keep it coming! 🙂

This federal judge keeps our Constitution alive and well…thank you for that HomeRun for all people.

I fail to see how this is remotely relevant. A registrant is not barred from flying anywhere. You can board any flight as long as you have a ticket, acceptable ID and no outstanding warrants (and have complied with state law regarding notification if any, hence, no warrants). Within the US there should be no issue whatsoever. The US routinely turns away people from all over the globe with criminal convictions attempting to enter the country. The plaintiffs in this case were on a no-fly list because of certain suspicions. All the government is doing to RSOs is inform their… Read more »

I think the main RSO issues are finding employment, getting a home with a roof in a safe neighborhood, not living in fear for your life or your families lives, being able to move from one part of the country to another without having to notify police of your every move, being able to use a park or library, not being put in jail for things that are not crimes for other people, not having to explain why you are not a monster to those who see your name on the list. If you can travel internationally, more power to… Read more »

I see a loose connection for sex offenders.

But I’d really love to know what data other countries have access to.

Is it our full history? Only if we are still registered? Is it attached to our passport or do they search by name?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x