“I disagree, if they are U.S. citizens, as apparently most are, they are entitled to due process...”
The no fly list does not impose any fines on anyone, nor does it put anyone in prison.
A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process. However, if people engaged in certain activities are deemed too dangerous to allow on planes, and that rule is applied evenly, then it meets due process. It should not require a court order to prevent someone from getting on a plane.
“The no fly list does not impose any fines on anyone, nor does it put anyone in prison.”
So, as long as there are no criminal or civil penalties, we don’t have to worry whether the law is just or not?
For example, say we make a law that allows a secret tribunal to hear evidence, with the accused not present, not informed of the charges, and not able to present their own evidence or to cross-examine witnesses. This court won’t be able to send you to jail, or charge you any fines, but if it finds you guilty, we can prevent you from owning a firearm. Oh, and there will be no appealing the decisions of the tribunal. Would that be “due process” to you?
Yet it restricts their movements.
A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.
And it seems to me, this "law" does not meet all of those standards.
However, if people engaged in certain activities are deemed too dangerous to allow on planes, and that rule is applied evenly, then it meets due process.
And that is the standard this "law" does not seem to meet.
It should not require a court order to prevent someone from getting on a plane.
True, but it should also not take a court order for the government to provide their probable cause for such prevention.