Yes. In the ruling, the Court "has concluded Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in the right to travel internationally by air".
However, it goes further as they found that as per Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1979) the plaintiffs constitutional right to due process has been violated because:
1. not only do they have a right to travel internationally, being placed on the no-fly list stigmatises them as the government discloses the list to other parties (such as ship captains) and additionally deprives them of their liberty.
2. Notice is insufficient as there is inadequate information given to those on the no-fly list, because under government policy they neither confirm nor deny they are on the list. This leads to a catch-22 situation where you cannot appeal an erroneous decision as you cannot tell what that decision was.
Interestingly, the court said they couldn't determine if there were issues with judicial review.
There is a third test, which is to weight the government's interest against issues with disclosure, but this couldn't be determined by the Court.
The ruling is quite readable, btw. It can be found here:
This looks accurate. In this case, it looks like the court relied both on precedent, the Constitution, and finding a new right. For purposes of appeal, my guess is the decision is upheld, while declining to accept the first justification of the ruling. The second point the decision relies upon is a pretty strong one, in my opinion.
However, it goes further as they found that as per Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1979) the plaintiffs constitutional right to due process has been violated because:
1. not only do they have a right to travel internationally, being placed on the no-fly list stigmatises them as the government discloses the list to other parties (such as ship captains) and additionally deprives them of their liberty.
2. Notice is insufficient as there is inadequate information given to those on the no-fly list, because under government policy they neither confirm nor deny they are on the list. This leads to a catch-22 situation where you cannot appeal an erroneous decision as you cannot tell what that decision was.
Interestingly, the court said they couldn't determine if there were issues with judicial review.
There is a third test, which is to weight the government's interest against issues with disclosure, but this couldn't be determined by the Court.
The ruling is quite readable, btw. It can be found here:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_hold...