After 9/11, airline passengers may find themselves in the untenable position of being denied passage because their name appears on a “no-fly” list, yet unable to discover why they have been placed on such a list, and therefore unable to contest any possible error in such placement. Among various cases that have arisen out of would-be airline passengers’ attempts to discover the reason for their “no-fly” status, the common response is deference to the government’s designation of information related to such lists as “Sensitive Security Information” (“SSI”) necessary for protection against terrorist attacks. This article gives a brief overview of government watchlists and screening methods related to airline travel, and the rationale behind the SSI label. Next, the article illustrates the deference the courts have typically shown to the government’s designation of SSI through the analysis of several representative cases. The article concludes that, as supported by a Government Accountability Office report on the issue, the SSI label is not always applied consistently or appropriately. Further, while there is now a directive to remedy that lack of consistency, the result may be that courts will be even more willing to defer to the government’s designation of SSI status, thereby curtailing passengers’ hopes of greater access to this information.

Admissible or Inadmissible analyzes the evidentiary issues that government documents and reports raise in aviation cases. Specifically, this article examines two common issues: whether the document in question falls within the hearsay exception for public records and whether the risks associated with the document substantially outweigh its probative value. After this examination, Admissible or Inadmissible delves into the admissibility issues related to particular types of documents, and concludes with a discussion of the arguments for and against the admission of government documents in aviation cases.

The full potential of military and civilian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has not been realized because most nations do not have a regulatory scheme allowing UAVs to transit through their nation airspace systems (NASs). This article addresses the need to integrate the use of UAVs into both domestic and international NASs. It begins by defining and giving an historical overview of the use of UAVs. Then, it discusses existing domestic and international regulations currently applicable to UAVs. Finally, this article addresses issues that nations will need to address in the future for UAVS to be fully integrated into NASs.