have acquired the district court committed reversible error and three points to begin with the district court overlooked  places an innocent american an american has not been charged or arrested for convicted of a violent offense of any kind on head secret government watch lax procedure due process and substantive due process protections apply those exists is not due to a weakness of the argument about international travel or interstate travel those there are very clear cases that describe what we would think of as aspects of the right of the international aspect of the right of man and the interstate aspect of the right of the movement but however the this court cuts that if it's just looking at interstate travel there really is no debate that the right of interstate travel to travel from one state to another from california to new york from florida to utah is a fundamental right and the ability to access the common mode of transportation obviously in and self explanatory in a self explanatory way travel he hasn't been denied in access to any ability to move from state to state or outside the country it's more of a it's more of a house on your honor that's only because he's been taken off the no fly list annotation on his watch list record has been suspended or altered in some way that's unknown to us in secret they never told us they never confirmed that it was on  a lot has been learned actually publicly about the watches thing system since briefing in this case has passed it due to pending litigation in other states and one of the key facts that has come out is that the federal government actually annotates who has sued the federal government and that's on the watch list and so when the mom of the just over the weekend traveled internationally from saudi arabia t what's his firm his harmonies is multi faceted and not limited to travel so i know i know we're talking about travel i understand that you've got the reputational piece but i mean i know what's the burden on interstate or international travel at this point sorry go to sleep i'll come back we're going to vie the voluntary secession doctor and this court as should have the lower where should have adjudicated the consequences of the flight ban and ban obviously makes it impossible to fly from one end of the country to the other given what when he's banned from travel would that be the time that you have a right to claim the challenges inclusion on the no fly list us or you are not we're not there yet we're on a secret selective list that he has what enhanced screening at every right isn't that where we are while we were were we were at a flight ban when this case was initially filed the precipitating event that lads who some alteration of his ts peace t s b status was the actual filing of this lawsuit he was not allowed to fly from kenya issuing one time waivers on two americans who fly overseas and then are placed on the no fly list after they fly overseas and these onetime waivers functionally operate as a way for the right of movement and he got a waiver for the one impairment on returning to the united states now as far as i can tell his freedom of movement is impaired not at all your own are and i bet you want to sue the government over the other their practices involving target subs that's a different claim than your right to travel well your honor i think that the ninth circuit recently after the briefing a and disclose that to the court that he was no longer subject to the flight data and so just as the lower court did here the lower court in fifth grade the f b i dismissed the case that case was appealed to them and circuit and the ninth circuit had to deal no fly lest the terrorist watch less the selectee less are all stigmatizing that the remedy still remains outstanding the remedy for the mama d is not simply the ability to fly in the future it's the remedy for him out that the federal government owes him is a clearing of his name a commitment that the same facts won't be applied to the same standard the stigmatizing status to the public in two different place one is our right dissemination so the allegation the complaint are that the watchlist disseminated not only to other to every single federal agency that eighteen thousand public and private entities receive access to ts d b m from ation more than sixty countries receive access to t s p information private entities for profit nonprofits is that it's contagious it doesn't just affect you it affects who you're traveling with as well and so they know that it's not random because when you  person you know is eligible for the list i'm what about national security implications of those types of trials and those types of discovery i mean what step two in this in this case is here or there has been a no fl which court did the ninth circuit the everything everything they did just it turned out after years of litigation that the person had been placed on the no fly list an accident inadvertently and that's the level of expect that we see throughout the no fly list i'm i'm i'm concerned troubled about what appears to be a practice for the government to down a list of people every time there's a lawsuit  complaint a judge would be able to address your question there was nothing in the complaint about the no fly list there was no argument about voluntary secession or move yes or anything like that the allegations in the complaint talk about screening and delays resulting from the selectee list and that is it that is the only harm alleged in the complaint and that is why the district court did not address the no fly claim list because it did not understand that to be part of the complaint if there was something in the complaint that the plaintiff thought was overlooked the time to do that was either in response to our motion to dismiss where we pointed out that there was no note there was no claim against the no fly list if the judgment had been entered and they thought hey you missed a part of like you mr counter my complaint you file a motion to reconsider or a motion to amend the complaint but none of that was done in this case so what we're talking about here is the are there very specific allegations in the complaint about the selectee list and that is all with respect to those claims and the due process count in the complaint that the district cork correctly was on the no fly list previously was he not that's the allegation in the complaint but we there's nothing in the record here to show one way or the other why was the improve not permitted the return from kenya them well i don't know what happened but i can tell you this your honor today and as of two thousand and fifteen if you are a u s citizen this plane gives and you experienced a denial of boarding and you filed a redress complaint with  remember i understand that people find this to be inconvenient in their search of the airport or they have delays but as rogers had pointed out that can happen for any number of reasons and people expect delays here you could be randomly selected for the off the selectee list of if it's been wrongfully as assigned well i think we'll certainly you don't bring a substantive due process class i claim which is what he brought here because in order to do that you have to show still on the list afterwards in your i'm happy i suppose you could bring some sort of a p a claim but not one predicated on substantive due process or procedural due process but in this case what we have is it due process claim and so in order to bring that kind of claim you have to show a protected liberty interest and as the sixth circuit held in beauty in which is directly on point these minor burdens don't rise to the level of a protected liberty interest and therefore you don't have a procedural due process claim or a substantive due process claim either as sort of a freestanding protecting the party interest or under a stigma plus candor they both fail and i think persuasive and as close as you could possibly get on the backs so once you're on the list you can only get off by grace and you don't even know it up there also if there's a list read the book but remember your honor suppose someone was on the list and they get off the list that doesn't even guarantee that you don't go through exactly the same screen when you come to the airport nobody could probably know you probably realize that there's been a change because you're not getting it every time  haven't said that maybe it will read it maybe we don't i think the opposite you're not just the person no if the government even read the letter well i think you take what we do is we ask when you file the redress the plane we say send us all of the information that you have this pertinent and it triggers an entirely new evaluation of that person at that time and so i think there's a presumption of government regularity that we come here and we say this is what we do we reevaluated person including not just the one sided record that we had before but now a two sided record which includes what we knew and everything that you told us in addition and i would say your honor in it in a similar vein although we don't have a new no fly list claim in this case i want to talk about that procedural a little bit because the other side brought it up in those cases some people are taken off the no fly list particularly because of what they say in that process selective completely off the list or in the process of theirs or an internal appeal there is a redress application but in this in this particular case in kerry what happens is they're told their status they're given an unclassified summary of the reasons the core receives an ex parte in camera submission of classified evidence and other things that can't be publicly released and then there can be a determination of whether someone is properly on the list or not a process because of the of the redress processors that because they have to file a lawsuit well it's both your honor the used to be something different and now it's something where people get told their no fly list acts and one of the differences is that the new no fly on this claim when you're actually prohibited from flying the district court in that case however that does rise to a due process liberty protected liberty interests because you're actually denied boarding but cases of ports that have dealt with well all you get is just a little bit of extra screening and there's delays that doesn't rise to a constitutional dimension there's a very different view from a due process perspective of those liberty interest with respect to the selectee list specifically distinguishing it from the no fly list where the interest is greater because you're actually prohibited from border i just want to make clear what is not in this getting more often select bursaries the right that's correct on page a original well it was originally in the complaint but if you'll see an appendix paid to seventy two in oral argument counsel specifically said i know i'm weaving that claim i'm not i'm a that's my understanding yes i will say kind of i could be going my colleagues that that is to me the government's process here is very troubling we're not going to tell you where you're on the list we're not going to tell you why you're on the list you could write us a letter case that's correct your honor so that would be a case for another day and in fact i'm glad you brought it up because it does imply it does impress upon us something that's a little bit odd about this case which is the the whole entire question whether there's a protective liberty interest stigma plus or all interceded questions that go to the procedural due process question and if there's no procedural due process claim because the band in any challenge of the procedures then what are we even he might have been on the on the no fly list which you're not able to confirm but he certainly is can reasonably suspect that he could be you know  change of status for the worse doesn't that really compel us to reach that no fly list and even though there is no current denial movement no your honor because you can't reach a claim that wasn't presented in the complaint and that was our point he didn't bring in no fly claim in the complaint he only channels the selectee list but i do want to say if something happens in the future say he's denied boarding in the future and he files a redress claim and he says i was denied boarding i think i'm on a no fly list he will be told whether he's on the no fly list or not and he can challenge that attic nation in that process he will be given an unclassified summary of the reasons and he can respond to it i want to be crystal clear that can happen if we're not saying that that happens in the future that he's for clothes for bringing or saying the opposite but in this case you're dealing with a complaint before thereafter and it was a claim about mood yes but the important point in that place is he brought a claim against the no fly list and he had allegations in this complaint all about that that was with the whole case was that there was a fourth amendment claim in but that's not relevant to this point from the administrative redress proceedings through the entire course of the district court litigation nobody not even seen up the district court understood that to be part of the case and he never said at the end of the judgment hey you missed a whole part of my complaint you know motion to reconsider a motion to amend the complaint he never did that and he's trying to expand the scope of the litigation in this appeal which he says he's not free to do what is it what is legal department extend the same review process to people national security problem if people all over the world couldn't just write it and say and i and this list and i and now list i want to know right now because if they can find out well person a either the last person to be is not and if there's some sort of threat they're going to use person b not person x and i get that i'm just wondering if i suspect i'm on the western reserve we do so because i get screened every time why not have a  review process that allows the end camera review of clip on player unclassified information being provided well it's our view that we used to be that that was the same thing with the no fly list but district court in oregon held that that that there's a due process interest there but no corps no appellate court has ever held that that same interest due process interest lies with the selectee list because the burden is so much more minimal nobody is denying their right to fly you're getting extra screening that's really no different from randomized people and you were talking about ten or fifteen minutes at an airport it just doesn't have the same sort of constitutional dimension a terrible despicable situation but perhaps the most life altering consequence was not related to his no fly list annotation but related to simply his t s d b stats his wife and his children's immigration selectiveness inclusion standard why the government is including some people and not others is a complete secret leaked documents show that it's you know it's open ended it's associated with terrorism but the government has never acknowledged what that standard as and so here the selectee less remember is just an annotation of the watch last and most of the consequences if the model becomes overdrive or he won't be allowed to drop off a passenger at a military base if he wants to buy a gun he'll be subject to a separate three day the way if he ever wants to work for the f b i or really any part of the federal government the federal government