FBI v. Fikre
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government cannot end a No Fly List lawsuit simply by removing the person from the list — it must also prove there is no realistic chance the person will be put back on.
The decision keeps alive Yonas Fikre's claims that he was listed because of his religion and his refusal to become an FBI informant, and holds the government to a demanding standard before any such case can be thrown out.
How it got here: Fikre sued in federal district court in Oregon; the district court dismissed for mootness twice; the Ninth Circuit reversed both times; the government sought Supreme Court review to resolve a conflict with the Fourth Circuit, and the Court agreed to hear it.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen originally from Eritrea, was placed on the federal No Fly List and stranded abroad for years. FBI agents in Sudan told him he could be removed from the list if he agreed to spy on members of his Portland mosque — he refused. He alleges he was later imprisoned and tortured in the United Arab Emirates at the FBI's behest, and spent years in Sweden before returning home. He sued claiming his placement on the list violated due process and was driven by his race, national origin, and religious beliefs.
The question before the Court
Can the government get a No Fly List lawsuit dismissed just by removing someone from the list, without explaining why they were listed or proving they won't be put back on?
The Court's answer
No — the government cannot dismiss Fikre's lawsuit just by removing him from the No Fly List. Under the voluntary cessation doctrine, a defendant who stops the conduct it was sued for cannot automatically walk away from the lawsuit; it must prove the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again. The government's declaration that Fikre "will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information" fell short because it only addressed his past actions — it gave no assurance that he wouldn't be relisted if he did the same things in the future, like attending a particular mosque or refusing again to become an informant.
The Court also rejected the government's secondary argument that years of post-removal litigation and Fikre's presumed free interactions with fellow worshippers made relisting unlikely. A defendant cannot substitute guesses about a plaintiff's future behavior for proof about its own. The ruling is provisional: as the case moves forward and allegations are tested against actual evidence, different facts could lead to a different outcome on mootness.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People placed on the No Fly List can continue pursuing their legal challenges even after being removed, unless the government can affirmatively prove relisting is off the table. A bare government declaration that someone is currently off the list is not enough — the government must show the conduct that allegedly triggered the listing won't trigger it again.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings. Fikre's factual allegations — currently accepted as true because the government moved to dismiss without contesting them — will eventually be tested against actual evidence. The Court noted that stronger proof could still establish mootness later, including potentially non-classified information or facts developed through discovery from Fikre himself, as Justice Alito's concurrence highlighted.
What this does not decide
The ruling does not decide whether Fikre was actually wrongfully placed on the No Fly List or whether the government violated his rights. It also does not require the government to disclose classified information to prove mootness — Justice Alito wrote separately to emphasize that non-classified evidence or information from Fikre may be sufficient to establish mootness down the road.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Alito
Justice Alito joined the Court's opinion fully but wrote separately to clarify one potential misreading: nothing in the decision requires the government to hand over classified information — to Fikre, his lawyer, or a court — in order to prove mootness. He noted that many federal courts lack the facilities or personnel to handle classified material, and that non-classified evidence or information obtained through discovery from Fikre himself could be enough to establish mootness in this or similar cases.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts can only decide live 'cases or controversies.' When a plaintiff gets everything they sought outside of court — such as being removed from a watchlist — the case ordinarily must be dismissed as 'moot,' meaning there is no longer a live dispute for a court to resolve.
- But the voluntary cessation doctrine prevents defendants from gaming that rule. A defendant who simply stops the conduct it was sued for does not automatically moot the case. Instead, the defendant bears a 'formidable burden' to prove the challenged practice cannot 'reasonably be expected to recur.' The Court emphasized this standard applies equally to government defendants and private ones.
- The government's declaration — representing that Fikre 'will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information' — addressed only what might result from his past conduct. It gave no assurance about what would happen if he engaged in the same behavior going forward, such as attending a specific mosque or refusing a renewed request to serve as an informant. The declaration therefore left open the very scenario Fikre feared.
- The Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the years elapsed since delisting, combined with Fikre's presumed free religious associations during that time, made relisting improbable. A defendant's speculation about what a plaintiff has or hasn't been doing cannot substitute for proof about the defendant's own future conduct.
- The Court also clarified that mootness does not require the government to admit its past conduct was unlawful. What matters exclusively is what the evidence shows about whether the challenged conduct is likely to happen again — not whether the defendant stands by or disavows what it did before.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. (528 U.S. 167)
The 'reasonably expected to recur' standard for voluntary cessation mootness is reaffirmed and applied in the national-security context.
Reaffirms Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (568 U.S. 85)
Reaffirmed that defendants cannot automatically moot a case by halting challenged conduct after being sued.