Air travel is a right

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by TSA News Blog, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. TSA News Blog

    TSA News Blog News Feed

    1586410418_647a70871d_z1-300x209.jpg
    Ladies and gentlemen, now we have it. On December 20, 2012, Judge William Alsup ruled against the TSA.​
    But before you get your hopes up, this is a case about the No-Fly List: Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security et al. (The case is covered in layman’s terms here.)​
    The Department of Justice had filed for the following:​
    (1) Dismiss the case. DENIED​
    (2) Allow a Federal agent to fly to California to show certain documents to the Judge, in camera (that means in chambers), without leaving any copies and without sharing the information with defendant’s counsel. DENIED​
    (3) Stay discovery. DENIED
    The Judge also sent a strong message as to the hurdle the DOJ would have to overcome regarding air travel:
    “The right to travel here and abroad is an important constitutional right. To deny this right to a citizen . . . based on inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would unconstitutionally burden the right to travel. While the Constitution does not ordinarily agree the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.”
    This isn’t exactly new, as so eloquently stated in Kent v. Dulles (1958):
    “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
    So there, DHS. So there, everybody else: the constitutional right to travel by air exists . . . even if (at the moment) it’s limited to international travel.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Not news at TUG -- we've had Kent. v. Dulles up for all to read for almost a year and a half:


    It's had almost 1100 hits.

    If Wendy Thomsen will re-read it (just the part she already quoted and bolded), she'll see that it covers domestic travel as well:

    Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  3. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I think Wendy was referring to this decision wrt the international travel aspect. I recall your Kent v Dulles post and have it stored for reference.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Wendy was stating that it's limited to international travel:

    It isn't, and she even quoted the relevant language just ahead of her statement that it's limited.
     
  5. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Too bad the current court didn't cite Kent v Dulles. So, would International travel include Canada and Mexico?
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The conclusion was the best part of Ibrahim:

    After six years and two unsuccessful appeals by the government, it is time to resolve this case on the merits. The Court needs the cooperation and assistance of counsel to do so. The motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion to stay discovery is DENIED. A separate case management order will set a timetable through trial.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  7. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    That was a judicial pimp-slap.
     

Share This Page