A federal judge rules the U.S. government violated the rights of 13 people on no-fly list

June 24, 2014
NATIONAL SECURITY
First ruling to label no-fly list procedures unconstitutional

A federal judge in Oregon ruled Tuesday that the U.S. government violated the rights of 13 people on its no-fly list by depriving them of their constitutional right to travel and giving them no adequate way to challenge their placement on the list.

It’s the nation’s first ruling to label the no-fly list redress procedures unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown’s decision says the procedure offered to people to remove themselves from the list fails to give travelers a meaningful mechanism to challenge their placement.

Thirteen people challenged being placed on the list in 2010, including four military veterans.

Initially, Brown said she couldn’t rule on the case. In 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and sent the case back to her.

— Associated Press

INDIANA

A tornado hit central Indiana Tuesday, damaging homes southwest of Indianapolis and downing power lines and uprooting trees in the city and its suburbs, authorities said.

It was part of several thunderstorms that sprang up in southwestern Indiana near Terre Haute and became more severe while moving northeast toward Indianapolis. National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Ryan said the tornado struck in the afternoon just southwest of Indianapolis and caused extensive damage to at least three homes.

That storm then headed into Indianapolis, where Public Safety Director Troy Riggs said city emergency officials received reports of house and tree damage and downed power lines on the southwest side of the city. Indiana State Police Sgt. Rich Myers said no injuries were reported.

— Associated Press

Appeals court refuses to review gay-jurors ruling: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday refused to reconsider its decision in January banning the exclusion of potential jurors because of their sexual orientation, saying such action was akin to striking someone from the jury pool because of their race or gender. An undisclosed majority of the full 29-judge court voted against rehearing the case over the objections of three judges.

— Associated Press

Continue reading
Comments
Show Comments