“It is the notification aspect of the regime where we believe there is the strongest possibility of a meaningful challenge and that is what we are primarily focused on.”
Wait a minute, are you talking specifically about the Passport Identifier as that Notification? Because I thought that earlier you were saying that you are only going after that Unique Identifier on the passport element of the law. So when you say “notification” I’m not sure what you mean since it could refer to any of three different notification requirements of the IML regime.
So, let’s define our terms. Here are the relevant ones from my perspective:
Advance Registrant Notification: Obligation of Registrant to notify the U.S. government of impending travel.
Foreign Notification: All of the methods that the U.S. employs to notify foreign governments of American Registrants status of which several are identified: per-trip notification generated by Angel Watch as a result of Advance Registrant Notification or PNR passenger name record hits generated when purchasing tickets to or from the U.S., continuous U.S. Registrant data available to all or most countries immigration points of entry provided by U.S. and INTERPOL networks. This data just lives indefinitely on these systems waiting for a U.S. Registrant to come along and to sound an alarm.
Passport Identifier Notification: notifies anyone, whether foreign or domestic, governmental or private, of passport-holder’s registration status.
One other thing: Janice Bellucci recently stated ACSOL’s intention to also file specifically against the unique marking. Is NARSOL collaborating with them and filing jointly?