Courts May Hear Evidence on No-Fly List Decisions, Appeals Court Rules
A federal appeals court has ruled that a federal statute doesn’t bar trial judges from hearing evidence on how names are added to the government’s no-fly list.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in the case of Rahinah Ibrahim, a Muslim student who was arrested at an airport and held for two hours when her name turned up on the list, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). She was allowed to fly home to Malaysia the next day.
A federal statute says only federal appeals courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration, the agency that maintains the no-fly list. Since federal appeals courts do not hear evidence, civil libertarians have so far been unable to get a hearing on any no-fly list issues.
The 9th Circuit ruled, however, that the agency that compiles the list, the Terrorist Screening Center, is part of the FBI rather than the TSA. As a result, trial judges can hear evidence about list decisions. The decision (PDF) was written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
“Our interpretation,” Kozinski wrote, “is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list?”
The ruling allows Ibrahim to challenge her listing and to sue the government agent who ordered her arrest, the story says.
