A case of abuse of the no-fly list before the Supreme Court


The no-fly list appears to include tens of thousands of people. The criteria for inclusion are opaque, which means that errors and misuse are possible. Mr. Tanvir’s lawyers say that he has never been arrested or charged with a crime and that he poses no threat to flight safety.

Mr. Tanvir and the other two men sued the agents in 2013. A trial judge the case dismissed, but a unanimous three-person jury from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, revived it. The 1993 Act, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote for the panel, allowed Mr. Tanvir to claim money from the agents for the damage suffered.

The law was an answer to a 1990 Supreme Court decision who refused to recognize religious exceptions to generally applicable laws. Congress effectively reversed this decision. “What this bill essentially says,” said President Bill Clinton before signing the bill, “is that the government should rely on a very high level of evidence before interfering with the freedom of others to practice their religion.”

Deviating from the complete refusal of the second circle to rehearse The panel’s decision said Judge Dennis Jacobs the decision was “quite wrong and actually dangerous” and sent an alarming message to law enforcement agencies. “The surest way for a government employee in doubt,” wrote Judge Jacobs, “would be to avoid work that does not need encouragement.”

Judge José A. Cabranes said in a second dissent that the Second District had circumvented, if not refuted, Supreme Court precedents, and not for the first time.

In 2009, in Ashcroft versus Iqbal, for example, the Supreme Court overturned a Second District ruling that allowed a Pakistani Muslim arrested after the 9/11 attacks to bring a lawsuit against John Ashcroft, a former attorney general, and Robert S. Mueller III, a former FBI -Director to initiate for ill-treatment, he said he had suffered in a Brooklyn detention center.

Similarly, the Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit in 2017 Ziglar v. Abbasi, Verdict against Muslim immigrants who said they were arrested, beaten, subjected to humiliating searches and other ill-treatment in the same detention center. Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, admitted the detainees’ way of saying they had been treated was appalling. However, he said lawsuits demanding money from government officials are not the right way to address alleged wrongdoing amid a national security crisis.


Source link

Previous Ease of EMI payments, cash in Jan Dhan accounts on government anvil to ease coronavirus burden
Next Baggage in money for consumption