Inquiring minds at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) want to know if officers or agents of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or other components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have tried to stop you from taking photographs, filming, or recording publicly-visible scenes and events at US land border crossing points.

As we’ve noted many times in this blog, and as as has been established in court cases in which we have participated, you have the right to photograph and record Transportation Security Administration staff and contractors at TSA checkpoints at airports.

We haven’t talked about land “ports of entry” as much as airports, but you also have the right to photograph and record at land border crossings, at least if you do so from places accessible to members of the public who aren’t crossing the border. (We don’t mean to suggest that you don’t also have the right to record or livestream what happens to you as you cross the border. We think you do, but that hasn’t yet been litigated as extensively.)

Read on for more about the state of the law, what you can do to reduce the chances that your right to photograph and record near borders  will be violated, and what to do if it is.

Read More →

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new interim rules today for the adjudication of asylum and other claims by a new class of “asylum officers” at US ports of entry, borders crossings, and airports.

These new rules won’t help most asylum seekers.

Did you ever wonder why desperate asylum seekers often travel on overcrowded and leaky boats or try to trek across waterless deserts, and regularly lose their lives?

It’s not because migrants can’t afford plane tickets. It’s because the government at their destination won’t let them buy a plane ticket or board a flight to a place of safety!

International treaties and US law only allow migrants to make asylum claims after they reach a destination country. You can’t apply for asylum in advance, the way you apply for a visa. You have to show up at the border or arrive at a destination airport before you can beg for asylum. And the US and the European Union work hard to prevent migrants from ever reaching a US or EU border or airport where they might make such a plea.

That’s why most migrants’ asylum claims are never “adjudicated”. Instead, they are denied before they get on a plane, by airline staff who have no training or competence to act as asylum judges. Most migrants never even try to travel by airline to a place where they could present their asylum claim, because they know that they will be turned away at the ticket counter or boarding gate. That’s why they end up trying to reach places of sanctuary by “irregular” means of transport, and drowning or dying of thirst in the desert.

Airlines should be helping migrants. Airlines have a legal obligation as common carriers to transport all would-be passengers. They have a financial interest in selling tickets to those passengers. But the US undermines international human rights and aviation treaties by imposing draconian “carrier sanctions” (currently $3,000 per passenger) on any airline that transports any person to the US who is denied asylum on arrival, or denied entry for any other reason. Many European countries do the same.

Airlines claim that they are denying passage to migrants because they “lack the required documents” for their desired destination in the US or elsewhere. But under international and US law, asylum seekers are not required to have or produce any specific documents in order to have valid asylum claims. There’s no such thing as an “asylum visa”. The migrant who arrives with just the clothes on their back and no documents often has a stronger claim to asylum than the one who brings passports, visas and other paperwork.

In 1939, officials in the US and Canada denied the passengers on the S.S. St. Louis “permission” to disembark, fating them to be returned to Europe where many were murdered by the Nazis. In recent years, US administrations have pursued policies designed to keep refugees from reaching US shores. These polices are designed to undermine the right to asylum. What the large print of international humanitarian law offers, the small print of “carrier sanctions” takes away.

It is, by definition, impossible for an asylum seeker to submit their claim or have it adjudicated before they reach the US. It is equally impossible for an airline, a “preclearance officer”, or anyone else to anticipate, before an asylum claim has been made, whether it will be granted. So to save the airline a possible “administrative fine” of $3,000 per passenger, airlines simply deny passage to all such people.

America didn’t use to be like this. People fleeing persecution in the Ukraine under Tsarist Russian rule could get to the US and apply, as long as they could reach a European port with enough money to pay for passage across the Atlantic. No passports or visas were required to buy a boat ticket and board a ship, nor were any required at Ellis Island.

It shouldn’t be harder today to reach asylum than it was a century ago. If the US and European governments were serious about allowing Ukranian refugees to claim asylum, they would repeal these “carrier sanctions”, rather than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by adding a new class of administrative law judges to process the few asylum claimants who do somehow arrive at the border.

The rights of refugees and asylum seekers recognized in high-sounding treaties will become meaningful only when migrants have an actual right to travel to the border or arrival airport to make their claim. Passing the Freedom To Travel Act, now pending in Congress, or including its provisions in any asylum or immigration reform legislation, would be one way to restore that right. But a smaller change in the law to repeal the “carrier sanctions” against airlines that transport migrants would be a great start.

In a letter first reported by Reuters and first published in full by The Points Guy, CEO Edward Bastian of Delta Air Lines has called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to “support our efforts with respect to… putting any person convicted of an on-board disruption on a national, comprehensive,… ‘no-fly’ list that  would bar that person from traveling on any commercial air carrier.”

The latest letter from Delta steps up a lobbying campaign the airline began last fall, and which remains as misguided as ever. The letter highlights the urgent need for Congress to enact the Freedom to Travel Act (H.R. 6030) to make clear the rights of travelers, the duties of airlines and other common carriers, and the limitations on when, by what authority, on what grounds, and according to what procedures the right to travel can be restricted.

Read More →

On the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, the Freedom to Travel Act of 2021 (H.R. 6030, “To protect the right to travel by common carrier”), has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security.

If enacted into law, the Freedom to Travel Act would be the most significant step toward bringing the TSA within the rule of law since the creation of the TSA 20 years ago this week with the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in 2001. It would rein in the TSA’s ability to substitute secret, extrajudicial edicts for court orders restricting American’s rights, and would remove key barriers that have stood in the way of judicial review of TSA actions and legal redress for those whose rights have been violated.

The 20th anniversary of the creation of the TSA is an apt moment for Congress to step back from the post-9/11 panic that drove the enactment of the ATSA, take a deep breath, consider what it has actually wrought, and begin to restore the historic right to travel that the TSA has been steadily chipping away at for the entire 20 years of its existence.

The Freedom to Travel Act would create no new rights, but would codify in Federal law an explicit right to travel by common carrier. Courts have recognized such a right, but have often struggled to find an explicit source for it or to assess its significance.

Given that human rights are inherent in our humanity and don’t depend on any statute or text, it shouldn’t be surprising that they aren’t always grounded in explicit statutory language. But ambiguity as to the source of the right to travel and the obligations of common carriers has made it easier for courts to brush off complaints of violations of that right as not having stated a cognizable claim, a claim that involves a fundamental (rather than a less significant) right,  or a claim for which the courts have the power to grant redress.

The Freedom to Travel Act would apply to interstate common carriers in all modes of passenger transportation: airlines, railroads including Amtrak, interstate buses, and ferries.

A common carrier, by definition, has a duty to transport all would-be passengers, but the US Department of Transportation has been lax in enforcing that obligation. The Freedom to Travel Act would create an explicit new Federal cause of action against any common carrier, person, or Federal agency that denies or refuses transportation by common carrier to any individual except on the basis of (1) failure to pay the fare or comply with the conditions of carriage in the carrier’s published tariff; (2) failure or refusal to submit to an administrative search limited to a search for weapons, explosives, or incendiary devices likely to pose a threat to the safety of the conveyance, passengers, or crew; or (3) an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Read More →