Federal Court Says The DHS's Terrorist Watchlist Unconstitutionally Deprives Travelers Of Their Rights
from the fix-it-or-ditch-it dept
A federal court [PDF] has just declared the federal government's Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) unconstitutional. It's not that the government can't maintain a database of travelers it feels are enough of a threat to hassle repeatedly, it's that it can't do this without providing more information to, and better redress options for, those it has placed on this list.
Unlike the "No Fly List," TSDB placement doesn't necessarily prevent those on the list from traveling. It just means they'll be subjected to enhanced screening processes and detentions that can last for hours. Travelers are not informed when they are put on this list. Nor are they told whether or not they are on this list if they ask the government why they're being searched and detained every time they attempt to board a plane or return from a foreign country.
The guidelines for placement on the TSDB are vague. They're also something the government isn't willing to discuss. A nomination can be performed by almost any federal agent for almost any reason. This is how the US government ends up presiding over a so-called terrorist watchlist that contains children as young as four years old.
The sole avenue of redress provided by the government does not work. The DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program was revised after being declared unconstitutional by this same court in 2015. The new version was considered adequate for travelers placed on the more restrictive "No Fly" list. But it isn't adequate for those the government feels are benign enough to be allowed to board planes, but somehow still dangerous enough to be subjected to lengthy interrogations and highly-intrusive searches.
The entire redress process is a black box. The DHS takes the complaint, determines whether or not the person is on the TSDB, and then tells the complainant nothing. Unlike the revamped redress process for the "No Fly" list, possible watchlist members are never told whether or not they're on the watchlist, or whether they're still on it after the government has taken a second look at their nomination.
The government tried to dodge this lawsuit by claiming two things: first, that traveling around the country without being hassled is not a right. Second, it said the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their non-litigation options, pointing to the very TRIPs process the court has declared unconstitutional. The court points out the plaintiffs are suffering real, ongoing harm due to their placement on this watchlist. That's enough to make the broken redress process the DHS offers unconstitutional.
Coupled with Plaintiffs' movement-related rights are their reputational interests and claims of reputational harm resulting from their placement on the TSDB. A person has certain rights with respect to governmental defamation that alters or extinguishes a right or status previously recognized by state law, known as a "stigma-plus."
[...]
Here, Plaintiffs' reputational interests implicated by their inclusion in the TSDB are substantial because of the extent to which TSDB information is disseminated, both in terms of the numbers of entities who have access to it and the wide range of purposes for which those entities use the information, including purposes far removed from border security or the screening of air travelers. For example, TSDB information is used in the screening of government employees and contractors, for which purpose access to the TSDB is provided to certain large private contractors to screen certain employees, as well as private sector employees with transportation and infrastructure functions.
Additionally, and significantly, the FBI shares an individual's TSDB status with over 18,000 state, local, county, city, university and college, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies and approximately 533 private entities for law enforcement purposes. These private entities include the police and security forces of private railroads, colleges, universities, hospitals, and prisons, as well as animal welfare organizations; information technology, fingerprint databases, and forensic analysis providers; and private probation and pretrial services. The dissemination of an individual's TSDB status to these entities would reasonably be expected to affect any interaction an individual on the Watchlist has with law enforcement agencies and private entities that use TSDB information to screen individuals they encounter in traffic stops, field interviews, house visits, municipal permit processes, firearm purchases, certain licensing applications, and other scenarios. For example, Plaintiffs might experience in other interactions with law enforcement agencies or affiliated private entities the same kinds of encounters they complain about at the border being surrounded by police, handcuffed in front of their families, and detained for many hours. In short, placement on the TSDB triggers an understandable response by law enforcement in even the most routine encounters with someone on the Watchlist that substantially increases the risk faced by that individual from the encounter.
Given what placement on the list takes away from those on it, the process provided by the DHS to seek redress is not Constitutionally adequate.
DHS TRIP, in its current form, provides no notice concerning whether a person has been included or remains in the TSDB, what criteria was applied in making that determination, or the evidence used to determine a person's TSDB status. Nor does the DHS TRIP process provide the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon to assign them TSDB status. Give the consequences that issue out of a person's inclusion on the TSDB, the Court concludes that DHS TRIP, as it currently applies to an inquiry or challenge concerning inclusion on the TSDB, does not provide to a United States citizen a constitutionally adequate remedy under the Due Process Clause.
The DHS will need to fix its redress process. Again. What may have sufficed for the more restrictive "No Fly" list does not come close to being constitutional when it comes to its other, far more expansive, watchlist.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, dhs, due process, terrorist screening watchlist, terrorist watchlist, travel, tsdb
Companies: cair
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Very good news...
the Soveriegn Citizen movement will rejoice that the court has confirmed their rights to "travel".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very good news... -- You didn't even read first paragraph!
Just now need to make up some reasons and convoluted policy.
I'm reminded that my position against TSA and domestic surveillance / police state will be ignored even if not forgotten, but won't bother because you'll all lie about it, regardless what I write here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Very good news --Speaking of Liars and the Lies they tell
“but won't bother because you'll all lie about it, regardless what I write here.”
Remember when you promised to leave forever bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very good Troll!!
but won't bother because you'll all lie about it, regardless what I write here
Since this is your first post, who has been lying about you? Citation needed!
Seems like you are the liar here. Making baseless claims without proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very good news...
I'm no sovcit, but I can certainly see a problem with subjecting people to government hassle without due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very good news...
As I recall, that's kind of the reason why the USA exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very good news...
dont get the US govt mixed up with America. They are completely on opposite sides of the coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
As Masnick wishes, a Section 230 for transport industries so immune and empowered, zero 'splainin, zero recourse, can charge people to even go to arbitration which they'll never win -- and to hell with that "goddam piece of paper".
By the way, wonder why this problem never comes up in Israel which has a literal wall keeping half the human population separated from those with rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
What the fuck are you talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
He's trying to tell us his morphin drip is not working anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
Apparently he has lost another job? Only thing I can think of since his inane rantings have gone up a notch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
Do you need an intervention? It sounds like you're having a delusional episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
It does sound like the voices in his head are arguing with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to nutty sovereign citazens
“By the way, wonder why this problem never comes up in Israel which has a literal wall keeping half the human population separated from those with rights.”
Because one a wall and ones a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
As Masnick wishes, a Section 230 for transport industries so immune and empowered, zero 'splainin, zero recourse, can charge people to even go to arbitration which they'll never win -- and to hell with that "goddam piece of paper".
This is incomprehensible, even for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, wonder why this problem never comes up in Israel which has a literal wall keeping half the human population separated from those with rights...
Your government literally has no problem with Israel's wall, blue.
Your boi Trump is a fan of Israel. Why are you not a fan of Israel? Are you a closet leftist, blue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
Those meds you've been given will stop the voices if you actually take them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn this problem over to unaccountable corporations!
By the way, wonder why this problem never comes up in Israel which has a literal wall keeping half the human population separated from those with rights...
Oh, for fucking fucks sake! What's with you inbred morons and your fucking walls? I'd love you take you retards and stick you behind a sound proof wall, so that I don't have to listen to this simple-minded bullshit anymore.
Take your wall, along with the check Mexico sent to build it and shove it up your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
I take it you don't have kids of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose they'll try to get their way by moving everyone on yo the No Fly List! We all know how they hate to lose and how much they want to progress to even more of a Police State!1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering we held people in Gitmo who committed the horrible crime of wearing a popular brand of watch (that some terrorists used sometimes), perhaps we have a really bad concept of who is a terrorist.
Personally I feel terrorized that I can be stopped for no reason beyond some prick with a badge wants to see my papers & can still claim they are forged or wrong, detain me for however long it takes their skull size expert to claim I am an adult, then dump me on the street without any possible recourse...
Perhaps its time to accept that we allowed them to become much worse than the boogeymen we thought they were keeping us safe from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many people on that list are political activists, engaged in the legal activity of petitioning the government and organising other people to do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm
So, if its not a hasssle ot be on the list, why don't the government defenders agree to be on it? Surely its not a bother and will show its not a hassle. It's not like it might hassle in secure locations, or get them booted from jobs. After all, they claimed in the court filing that it has no hassle and besides, it is the law and they should be willing to go through the same hoops as everyone else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]