No judge would actually argue for a right to travel so broadly defined that it would essentially remove all regulatory power over who can and cannot fly.
Because judges are hesitant to make such sweeping redefinitions of established law. Not that it doesn't happen, or taking a position on whether it's optimal, but it's incredibly uncommon, and generally frowned upon by the judicial and legal community. Even the most ardent judicial activists tend to favor change by increment.
Why not?