4 ms·
The ruling does seem to imply that, however, on appeal, that will almost certainly be clarified. No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly
by the_watcher 12y ago
The ruling does seem to imply that, however, on appeal, that will almost certainly be clarified. No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly defined that it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who can and cannot fly. The ruling will likely be clarified for precedent to mean that the right to due process includes a right to quickly and effectively contest designations by government agencies in the absence of formal charges of violating a law.
The right to travel, in the broad sense of "you have the right to move wherever you want to move so long as no laws are violated," is likely covered by an umbrella of the 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression, as well as the 9th Amendment, as a negative right: you are free from being prevented from travel by means not permissible by law or Constitutionally.
- chris_wot 12y agoThere's nothing implied. The Court flat out says that denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty.
- the_watcher 12y agoDoes anyone have a link to the actual decision? Upon rereading, the article certainly makes it seem as though the crux of the ruling was around a denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty, but were I the appealing attorney, that would be fantastic news. That's a major change in the permissiveness of the word liberty, and would open up infinite slippery slope arguments. I'd bet on that logic failing on appeal. However, if the decision relies on other grounds (either solely or in addition to), then I doubt it is overturned. While the Reuters article presents this as legally binding, if the quotes occurred in dicta (discussion of the facts and implications of the case that are not legally binding, as they are not grounded in case or black letter law), then it's not binding, and the ruling can be upheld without addressing the redefinition of liberty.
- chris_wot 12y agoFind it here. Deprivation of liberty is not the whole issue, it was a problem with lack of due process, of which deprivation of liberty is but one part. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold... I summarised the case in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7940334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7940334
- jacalata 12y agoNo judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly defined that it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who can and cannot fly. Why not?
- the_watcher 12y agoBecause judges are hesitant to make such sweeping redefinitions of established law. Not that it doesn't happen, or taking a position on whether it's optimal, but it's incredibly uncommon, and generally frowned upon by the judicial and legal community. Even the most ardent judicial activists tend to favor change by increment.