court this honors court ruled that the district courts do have such manager's decision to address the issue of an individual being placed on the no fly or what we watch list that we call the watch list and mo being placed on there so that court upheld the fact that reversed a lower court saying that you could argue that being placed on the terrorist watch list or the terrorist no fly actually when i look at the allegations the only thing you have to say on behalf of your clients is that they were  the amended complaint to just a particular days as opposed to be doing but that's such a you said the day i mean mostly you're saying they were deterred from flights because they don't want to go through the extra screening procedures but we don't have specific trip because he just wanted to do in with the humiliation and the harassment at the airport john and all due respect the judge the the fat what is the humiliation and rassmann other than the subject extra screening well that's one thing if everyone had to go through it well but not everyone's going through it how is that they select people random don't they for extra screening even people that are armless but this is not random on and i know but so that's demeaning humiliating i mean if you're randomly selected as well not wouldn't say randomly selected to on that's the problem they're not randomly selected no one knows that no one knows that i mean i go through i get selected you go free you get selected no one knows whether we're on some list we're getting selected and the other problem you have is t f c puts you on the list so if it's just being subject to extra screening that you have a constitutional violation then maybe you have a claim against t s a but if what you're talking about is in particular circumstances t s a held you longer t s a say from us right no but it's t s t the put you on the list but t s a is the one who does the screening correct they do the screening and behest of the f c i understand that but you could have a bit of an claim if someone does awful things to you a law enforcement officer you probably have a bit of unschooling because they can't on recently did detain you under the fourth amendment now that's a big vince particular facts with all due respect to another just as you're underestimating the effect of human dignity on it says if i can if i walk down the street to the secretary of state and because i'm on the so called list for the secretary of state i have to sit there and wait three four  five hours be subject to question humiliating questions because i am who i am and you won't tell me who i need a disk or can even possibly wait a minute later the kid to it stop so i get that and if that's occurring then it seems to me as judge clay set you lay out the facts you let a court scene and you bring a bit of an action for them violating your fourth amendment rights but if what's occurring is simply by being placed on the list all  authorized by placing you on a select seal if it's different than a no fly list because that could impede your right to travel all they are doing here is saying you like so many of your fellow citizens who are randomly selected you're going to be selected every in the dark that allows the government basically operating in the dark pool whoever they want as they please we don't know if they're doing it because this individual's or american hispanic american the arab american that's the problem with their role on them to operate and they're saying we don't want to see that there is  and missed a judge griffin going to go there but i have to be subject to three four hours possibly this a flight if i have business dealings or what have you and no one else has to just because then i can't get any answers from anyone but you under don't operate like that in the united states of america and and i'm a completely agree with you on that but the way i see what you've got to do for us i guess i get what you're trying to argue but what you have to do for us you have to think about this holistically if what you're trying to argue is by people placed on the list you're subject extra screening and that screening is no different and i get you're doing you're going through it every time but it's no different than someone that's randomly selected they're not impeding your right to travel because everyone randomly selected when they're randomly selected to bring that claim and they're not impeding your due process rights because there's no liberty interest at stake if it's not their right to travel that you've identified ok so if you set that aside if what they're doing is detaining you for four to five hours then what you have is an independent fourth amendment violation claim for that particular case that you could try and bring and it's under bibbins and it's against the individual agents because i couldn't find and i looked at maybe you can point me to a rag or rule that allows them to detain you my name i have so but if it's just to be doing a list of each and every time that the state defector but that's not the way the constitution works in other words if you've got a liberty interest it's their right to travel and if all they're doing is impeding slightly the right to travel in a way they do it to random people and people on the list i don't think that's a fair comparison on that was all due respect just because once in a great while someone is and by the way we don't know the time or so you've got ignore that let's  same day i go through mr beydoun goes through and we both get picked for extra screening him because he's on the left me because i select a random ok we both go through and we both leave at the same time there's no i'm but this goes back to judge quite a question you haven't identified a difference by rule or by facts every time and if again what they're doing you may have a bit of an fourth amendment claim if what they're doing is issues at hand that some hinderance to travels all right under the right to travel in fact there's an argument they can take away your right to fly could you can drive and take but that i was instructed that that's a challenge to the redress procedure right what you do not necessarily on  named a terrorist of has ties to terrorism regardless whether you're traveling with business associates employees colleagues family it's just there's a huge stigma that is placed on then we're allowing the government a reign free to they could do this without much at some balances and i think there's something fundamentally inherently wrong in that because when you're determined every one of these individual says i don't want to fly anymore they are deterring their abilities to fly there are  procedure both they have and i can tell you this john a plus we have a hotline on the under their mental civil rights league not one of those individuals ever went through their procedures ever been removed through their procedure where you're not you don't have an see what basis that they made a decision whether to to to remove your edge to remove you from that list go ahead i'm sorry well that that's your challenge to the redress procedure as challenge to the redress procedure which may not that's actually your better claim here but it's not even before us and it's not and i guess it has to be brought in the court of appeals that i would think that you know i think that's what you're you know the really basis of your complaints someone's violating my rights well i mean you're on the front half of your i never should have been put on that and the beginning because it paid my right to travel so ok even the regis i mean that's a separate argument as to the rich was process itself but  i don't think there's any anything in the record one way or the other about this case they've been i don't ask you if it was in the record i just asked you if they were on or no for a lot of this there i guess we're not speaking the same language here let me put it this way your  list or not so i can't answer that question on the on the public record your honor but i think they are they enhance are they subject as a result of being placed on the selectee list to more screening than someone randomly selected at the airport no i think the someone who's randomly selected for enhanced screening would get this not a different kind of enhanced screening now so that last three or four hours excuse me as an enhanced screening last three or four hours not as far as i know your honor there's no allegation about three or four hours in this in this chamber there's a lot that came out of the oral argument that's not really in the record you know i mean let's let's look at the complaint because the operative complaint is what you look at for the allegations that you would how much how much in general would it enhanced screening how long duration on average i don't i don't have an answer for what the average is i don't i don't know i think it would depend on particular circumstances of a person but in this case we deal with the facts as a lead in this complaint but can i ask you i get that but i just want to understand the process so they get placed on a selectee list are they subject at the airport to more screening than someone randomly selected so if i go through and mr beydoun goes through them or back to back and they say this guy's getting randomly selected and they pull me aside and give me the ten minute shake them is mr beydoun subject to the same ten minute shake down because he's on the selectee list or is he subject to something more than the ten minute shake well let me answer that this way your honor someone who is randomly selected doesn't get a different kind of in hand screening but i think what an enhanced screening would involve and how long it would last would depend on the particular circumstances of each individual screening what happened during that what they saw let's say they go look at luggage it depends on what you see in the luggage just like if your bag goes through the x ray machine and my bag goes through the x how long the examination takes depends on what's in the bag and what the on so i understand so mr braden goes through does he get his bag searched and wanted because with me when i go through they rarely bother with my bag they just want me if they're want to do the enhanced screening or they pull me aside but they don't check my bag it sits there and so does it mean if you're on the selectee list are going to do the full monty to you what i think again i think it depends on the circumstances an officer has to make a judgment at the time based on what he or she sees and so i can't answer that as what you're telling me is being on the selectee list is not subject you to a certain heightened screening it's just like anyone else what i'm saying is that there's no specific rule about how long a hand screening takes or exactly what they do but i can tell you what we have is allegations in the complaint and i think when you're judging decisions you know whether a claim was stayed in this case you have to look at the complaint so let's look at the complaint page first of all be doom doesn't complain doesn't lie just single fact about what was and what he was involved in any kind of screening  describes and with additives calling it grueling or burdensome but it doesn't actually say what happened because he has two pages pages ten in a lab in of the complaint to describe what happened and other than looking at the luggage and it didn't say what that involved it talks about delays that range from ten minutes to want to hour there's nothing about three to four hours which i don't think would make a conservation difference anyway but we're talking about minutes to six to up to sixty minutes a most and there is no way that that is in that implicates a liberty interest or any kind of right to travel under this court's or any other courts precedent that i'm that i'm aware of it's no different from many delays that travelers who go t regular screening in tail it's no different from even when you show up at this court you have to show up a half an hour earlier and then you wait for your case to be heard i waited for over an hour for this case to be heard and i don't mean that is any disrespect just th are delays that happen in life and delays that happen with any travel in your rights what they're alleging is that it's my right to travel if every time you're delaying me in such a significant way that i miss my flight and it harms my right the stigma plus that this is a stigma plus by placing me on this list without any process you're doing it in the dark and you're not allowing me to have any say in that before i'm on this list and i'm subject to something that all my fellow citizens are well let me know a couple of different parts of that let me deal with first of all the you're not letting me have any say that goes to the process and what you get before the alleged deprivation which they've just conceded is no longer part of this case i mean they've conceded well they just said they're not challenging the the adequacy of the process their challenge the inclusion on the list now they're challenging the fact that they're being excluded from the process in making a determination as to whether you go on the list that's the only thing they really can challenge right now because t s a is the only entity in front of us well let me try to back up and get to that at the back and  let's talk about de lay first in order to have a claim here they have to show a liberty interest so the question would be is there a liberty interest in having a delay free travel when you're when you're flying you can phrase it that way or you can say you have a right to travel and the government is impeding it and in fact taking it away because they're putting me on this list that's their argument because the way you phrase it you win every time well the supreme court and this court has made clear that you have to define the liberty interest very carefully and very narrowly according to what's being actually alleged in the complaint and not in very general broad danger otherwise you'd always have a liberty interest and so you have to look here and ask whether the ten minute delay or the hour delay is itself a liberty interest and i think you have to look at that in the context of what you're talking about airline travel the kind of delays and burdens that every traveler flays faces when they go to an airport and everyone goes through some form of screening and everyone has a risk of enhanced screening through random selection or because they do something suspicious at the airport that triggers extra scrutiny where the metal detector goes off so you have to think about that context and then you look at the specific facts is the ten minute delay something that impedes the right to travel to a constitutional magnitude i don't i don't think that it does and in terms of did they miss flights they actually describe in the complaint the flights that they made not all they say is that they were delayed as to it and if someone misses a flight because a ten minute search that's not necessarily has anything to case the sixth circuit said that single plus is reputation arm some alteration of a writer status that accompanies damage their reputation and what they're saying is being placed on this list and being subject and knowing you're on this list and being subject every time you go through you dread it it affects your reputation it affects your statement i mean there's no doubt there's two things you can be called in this country that make you awful child molester and terrorist right and so if they if people think they're a terrorist because you're on this list that harms them well first of all your honor in order to have a stigma plus claim you need to have dissemination of whatever the alleged stigma is and the actual allegation here is what we said is there's no confirmation or denial whether you're on the no no selectee list we don't tell anyone so there's actually the opposite of dissemination we keep it secret number two getting screened there is crime virtually no stigma that's a quote from then judge case in the third circuit because everyone goes through screening and some people go through enhanced screening and when you get enhanced screening you're allowed if you're concerned about this to request a private room to have the screening and in fact in mr posses complaint it says that it was done in a in private school in private so he specifically asked for that and then on top of that even if you had stigma which we don't think there is and it was disseminated which it wasn't you have to have a plus an alteration of a legal right which there was not here because he was permitted to fly just like everyone else so there's no stigma and there's no plus and therefore no stigma plus the area under the due process cla e and i'd like to just return to the last point that you made when we were talking about the read the adequacy of the redress process because i'm a little bit confused about what's actually in the complaint now and there might be some confusion so i just want to address sort of a little bit more completely number one if there was a complaint about the adequacy of the redress process under the due process clause this court held in that you must name t s a as a defendant in that suit and there is no dispute that mr plaintiff the june did not do that and therefore mokdad is squarely on point but he not in this case but he could write challenge the redress procedure and basically skip the district court and it would come here right put it in simple english yes i believe that that kind of a claim would be properly filed under section forty six one ten in a petition for review in the court of appeals the district court would not have jurisdiction under under that claim and that is why the district court in baazi dismissed that claim even though t s a was named as a defendant so we think that that was proper and in fact i don't know whether he's still challenging the attic as it were just process or not but there certainly has been no argument that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over that claim if it was brought and since he's not disputing it and i think your honor i understand that that's correct you know i think that this court should hold that that kind of a claim needs to be brought under forty six one tatt well i mean erie band of the claimant district court and he has an appeal that so rather than the the the forty six one one one zero is flooded in of itself there's already holdings across this country they said they can't remove the individual if i brought against the t s a and went with the huge hurdle of arguing before the court of appeals on this issue they can't remove them it would be futile it is the ts see they could remove them not the t s a so we can you know that that's already been established the fact is you know there's a good point as to when we want to and subject matter jurisdiction not discovery issue we were not allowed to have discover to bring all this information in as to how much time and effort things of this nature the individual has to get but that your complaint you can go out every your client and put it in your complain which we did and we did on one of those things but we were we were arguing more that the fact that he was under slurs without the due process process and the fifth amendment if you process it go back and read it says you're not to be denied process it for if you have a liberty interest property interest or some you have to put the facts that establish the liberty interest and how that's being impugned before you ever get to the process you put the cart before the horse whether he flew from d c to come over here or if near us his office the fed as we make a conscious decision when i go to chicago to new york i made a conscious decision whether i should drive or whether i should fly i came from detroit this morning i  drove because i knew i made a conscious decision five go through the airport to be a possibility of delaying why i view the fact this is what's going through the mind set when we talk about the stigma plus doctrine these individuals are being hindered their ability to fly because each time that  think well i may have to stay another hour now we are going to add that this particular cases and other kids are very much longer two three hours but the fact is so i may not want to take a flight to be delayed for two three hours i'm sure brother counsel doesn't want to be delayed each and every time be questioned all the time each and every time that he has to fly around the country and be arguing before these courts and we're happy it's just our fares on fundamentally wrong again the idea was that i decided that i will drive here because i don't want to go through the hassle of the time it's going to take to fly over from detroit to cincinnati and that's the kind of conscious decision in addition to the fact that being as you're on a basically label labeled a terrorist and the fact that they put on your on your on your boarding pass as for us i mean literally and for brother council to say that it it it's in secret on one really knows that's ridiculous everyone knows defamatory rules that you can defame an individual just if you see it to one person and this particular circumstances these individuals are targeted the person behind the counter the person behind them and a lot that's waiting behind be behind to be checked then the the family members  possibly a colleague possibility a business individual part of that are flying together with all sorts of individuals are able to see that you're being singled out and it's defamatory it's her full and charlie stross at the