Judge Rules Terrorism Watchlist Violates Constitutional Rights
"Trump’s 10 ‘terrorists’: Where are they? [...] The vast majority, 2,170, were trying to come by air, with 335 by land and the rest by sea. Nothing ties them specifically to Mexico. P - Vice President Mike Pence misrepresents the finding the next month, attributing all of those encounters to the Mexico border: "I learned yesterday at the Hidalgo border center that along the southern border of the United States, we actually still apprehend 1,100 individuals a day, who are attempting to enter this country illegally, including seven individuals a day who are either known or suspected terrorists." P - There's more wrong with his statement than that."
Being on the watchlist can keep people off planes, block them from entering the country, subject them to greater scrutiny by the police and deny them government benefits and contracts. Stephen Chernin/Getty Images
By Charlie Savage
Sept. 4, 2019
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a federal government database that compiles people deemed to be “known or suspected terrorists” violates the rights of American citizens who are on the watchlist, calling into question the constitutionality of a major tool the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security use for screening potential terrorism suspects.
[...]
As of 2017, about 1.2 million people were on the watchlist, which is maintained by the F.B.I.’s Terrorist Screening Center. Although a vast majority of them were foreigners abroad, about 4,600 were American citizens who are protected by the Constitution.
Among them, a group of 19 Americans, represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a lawsuit charging that their inclusion violated their due process rights. Recounting tales of being detained and harassed when trying to enter the country, they argued that they did not receive notice of why they were being put on the list or an opportunity to contest derogatory claims.
The judge agreed that the current procedures were inadequate to protect their rights, granting the plaintiffs summary judgment. But he stopped short of saying what should happen next, asking the Justice Department and the lawyers for the plaintiffs to submit briefings on the difficult question of “what kind of remedy can be fashioned to adequately protect a citizen’s constitutional rights while not unduly compromising public safety or national security.”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
