plane taxis at seatac

Thirteen U.S. citizens, including the prayer leader of Oregon's biggest mosque, have sued the United States for excluding them from flying. They accuse the government of denying their Fifth Amendment guarantees to due process by failing to explain why they have not been permitted to fly in the past or when they might be able to fly again.

(The Associated Press)

Putting Americans on the government's

and giving them no answers why deprives them of their constitutional protections, a federal judge in Portland

.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's opinion did not declare the no-fly list unconstitutional, but it came close. She noted in her Wednesday ruling that those on the list are not given any reasons for their inclusion and do not get a hearing that might clear their names.

Brown's opinion came in the case of 13 U.S. citizens, including the prayer leader of Oregon's biggest mosque, who have sued the United States for excluding them from flying. They accuse the government of denying their Fifth Amendment guarantees to due process by failing to explain why they have not been permitted to fly in the past or when they might be able to fly again.

The judge wrote that plaintiffs have made the case that their placement on the no-fly list has severely restricted their ability to travel internationally, and likely will in the future. Some have made trips by boat and land, expending "an extraordinary amount of time, expense, and difficulty," she wrote.

More

"Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States, such as traveling by car or train, the court disagrees with (the government's) contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world," Brown wrote.

Moreover, she noted, the implications of the no-fly list are potentially far-reaching. For example, she wrote, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center shares watchlist information with 22 governments, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection also makes recommendations to ship captains, which could interfere with a person's travels.

"Accordingly," she wrote, "the court concludes on this record that plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the list."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, described Brown's decision as a critically important step toward vindicating the due process rights of Americans on the list.

"For the first time, a federal court has recognized that when the government bans Americans from flying and smears them as suspected terrorists, it deprives them of constitutionally protected liberties, and they must have a fair process to clear their names," ACLU lawyer Nusrat Choudhury wrote in a statement.

"The no-fly list procedures violate due process because the government refuses to provide any explanation or a hearing for innocent Americans to challenge their inclusion," she said. "And we look forward to making that case to the court."

Brown's ruling followed a June hearing in which she grilled a U.S. Justice Department lawyer, asking him to justify the limited process for people to challenge their inclusion on the roster. When the lawyer told the court that overseas travelers have alternative means of traveling, Brown noted that they aren't equipped with "Star Trek"-style transporters.

The judge deferred ruling on a series of other motions in the case and ordered lawyers for both sides to confer and submit a status report to her by Sept. 9.

"We're confident," Choudhury said, "that when the court reviews any additional information that the parties provide that she will reach a ruling that the current system is patently unfair and violates the Fifth Amendment."

-- Bryan Denson