While I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning here, I'd also like to ask why it would reasonable if it were, in fact, merely an inconvenience. Let's say, for

While I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning here, I'd also like to ask why it would reasonable if it were, in fact, merely an inconvenience. Let's say, for example, that instead of the no-fly list, we had a hassle-me-extra-at-the-airport list with the same lack of transparency and process. Still absurd, in my view. Even if you establish something is a "privilege" and not a "right", having an arbitrary and capricious system for deciding who has it should still be illegal. I do understand that the judicial system applies different rational-basis scrutiny standards based on whether fundamental rights are being violated; I'm not protesting the legal logic at play in this case, especially since I haven't yet read the decision itself. But it could well be that the standards themselves are crazy. I plan on reading the decision in full tomorrow.