The real question here is why the no-fly list exists in the first place.
Because it really makes no sense: there is no human-being alive who is too dangerous to, with appropriate screening, be put on airplane and flown somewhere.
The no-fly list is solely punitive, and argued for on the ridiculous basis that it somehow prevents the organization of dangerous individuals (as though they can't just drive between states, or you know, send email).
I am waiting for the perfect case to challenge the no fly list on its face.
Scenario: A resident of Hawaii ends up on the list.
Problems: There is no alternative to air travel to/from Hawaii to travel about the country, much less about the world. Thus while the government may argue there is no right to air travel, there is a right to engage in interstate travel that is well settled and removing the only form of interstate travel interferes with that unquestionably. So you have the possibility of saying flights to/from Hawaii can't be covered, in which case the equal protection guarantee read into the 5th Amendment doesn't apply independent of state of residency, or you have to throw the whole list out.
How practical are each of these, and to what extent do other means of transportation at least check the no-fly list (that it is only binding to commercial airports doesn't mean it only applies to them).
Because it really makes no sense: there is no human-being alive who is too dangerous to, with appropriate screening, be put on airplane and flown somewhere.
The no-fly list is solely punitive, and argued for on the ridiculous basis that it somehow prevents the organization of dangerous individuals (as though they can't just drive between states, or you know, send email).