## Facts

- Thirteen U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents were repeatedly denied boarding on commercial flights to, from, or over the United States and alleged the denials were caused by their placement on the federal No-Fly List.
- Plaintiffs sought redress through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) and received generic responses that neither confirmed nor denied No-Fly List status, provided no reasons for restrictions, and offered no assurance about future ability to fly.
- The No-Fly List is administered through the Terrorist Screening Center, which relies on agency nominations using a “reasonable suspicion” standard that an individual is a known or suspected terrorist.
- The court had previously determined that placement on the No-Fly List implicated protected liberty interests in international air travel and in avoiding false governmental stigmatization.
- The case returned to the district court after appellate review on jurisdiction, and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on procedural due process and APA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether DHS TRIP and related redress procedures for persons affected by No-Fly List determinations provide constitutionally sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion, consistent with the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the DHS TRIP redress process for No-Fly List determinations is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendants’ motion on the procedural due process claim.
- The court held that, as implemented, DHS TRIP violated the Fifth Amendment because it failed to provide sufficient notice of reasons for No-Fly List inclusion and a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion.
- The court held the DHS TRIP process, as applied to No-Fly List redress for plaintiffs, was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- The court ordered the government to remedy procedural deficiencies by providing, at minimum, notice of No-Fly List status (subject to narrow exceptions), reasons for inclusion in an unclassified or summarized form where necessary, and an opportunity to respond consistent with national security constraints.

## Legal Principles

- Inclusion on the No-Fly List can burden protected liberty interests, including the ability to travel internationally by air and the interest in avoiding government-imposed stigma associated with being labeled a suspected terrorist.
- Procedural due process is assessed under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, weighing (1) the private interests affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards, and (3) the government’s interests, including national security and administrative burdens.
- Due process generally requires notice sufficient to permit an affected person to submit exculpatory evidence and arguments, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker; secrecy concerns may justify tailored protective measures but not a wholly opaque, one-sided process.
- Agency procedures that produce serious liberty deprivations without meaningful notice or a mechanism for correction may be set aside under the APA as arbitrary and capricious.

## Conclusion

The court held that DHS TRIP, as used to address alleged No-Fly List restrictions, did not provide adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion, violating the Fifth Amendment and failing reasoned decision-making under the APA, and it directed the government to implement corrective procedures consistent with national security needs.


Latif v. Holder, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Or. 2014)