FBI v. Fikre

Background

A U.S. citizen who lived in Portland traveled overseas for business and learned at a U.S. embassy that the government had put him on the No Fly List. FBI agents allegedly interrogated him about the mosque he attended and offered to remove him from the list if he agreed to act as an informant; he refused. He later says he was detained abroad at the FBI’s request and lived in Sweden for years before returning to the United States. He sued, claiming he got no meaningful notice of why he was listed and that the listing was based on impermissible reasons like religion and national origin. The government removed him from the list in 2016 and argued the lawsuit was moot; lower courts split on that question.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether delisting alone ends the case. It said a defendant who stops the challenged conduct must prove the practice cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The government’s short declaration that the man “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” was not enough. Because the declaration did not rule out relisting if the same or similar events occurred later, the Court held the government failed to meet its heavy burden and the lawsuit remains live for now.

Real world impact

The decision lets this former No Fly List member continue his suit and signals that people removed from watchlists can still press legal claims. It also requires governments to provide stronger, concrete assurances before courts will dismiss such cases. This ruling comes at a preliminary stage, so facts and evidence may change the outcome later.

Dissents or concurrances

A Justice concurred separately to stress this ruling does not require the government to disclose classified information; nonclassified material or plaintiff-side evidence may sometimes suffice to prove mootness.