Indeed, I think it would be a violation of due process to keep people deemed suspicious from flying.
[Edit: I mean to say "travelling" rather than "flying." However I do think there are due process issues there, just not as severe.
The big one is that there has to be a reasonable way to challenge one's inclusion on such a list. This is particularly important where first amendment issues like speech and religion may be considerations.
I don't know that a court will hear that anytime soon. I think to prevail someone would have to go through the administration, not prevail, sue the agency in federal court under the Administrative Procedures Act, and fail under that act, before you could get to the question of what process was due.]
Due process only applies to arrest and trial (as in you can't be charged for theft of a candy bar and held in jail for 36 months until your trial begins).
It's still not "right" how some people are on the infamous do-not-fly list, but it is essentially "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Flying isn't a right given by God or the Government, it's a capability (not really even a privilege), that anyone with enough money to buy a ticket can do until someone else says no. American Citizens are given the right to speak out about the government and own firearms, but we aren't given the right to travel to New York from Los Angeles in 5 and a half hours.
Being held for questioning (detained) at security when flying is a whole other matter.
I didn't say "fly" but rather "travel" as did the parent to whom I was replying. This is important because, well the TSA isn't just for airports anymore. [edit: mea culpa, I did say flying. I will fix it.]
There may not be a right to take a particular mode of travel but the overall right to travel has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental part of the system of federalism in the United States (this is why it's a 10th Amendment matter).
Edit: I don't know if one could argue that denying flying to/from Hawaii or Alaska is the same as denying travel to/from those states though. That might be an interesting argument. I am not aware if any case that addresses whether that would be constructive denial of that vested right in the same way that denying passports to suspected communists is....
Also it occurs to me... due process does apply to all sorts of administrative detentions, and I would be surprised if it wouldn't apply to things like no-fly lists.
[Edit: I mean to say "travelling" rather than "flying." However I do think there are due process issues there, just not as severe.
The big one is that there has to be a reasonable way to challenge one's inclusion on such a list. This is particularly important where first amendment issues like speech and religion may be considerations.
I don't know that a court will hear that anytime soon. I think to prevail someone would have to go through the administration, not prevail, sue the agency in federal court under the Administrative Procedures Act, and fail under that act, before you could get to the question of what process was due.]