FBI v. Fikre
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government cannot kill a No Fly List lawsuit just by removing someone from the list — the government must also show there is no real chance of re-listing them.
The decision keeps alive a Muslim American man's suit alleging the FBI placed him on the list to pressure him into becoming an informant against his mosque, and it reinforces that the government gets no easier path to ending lawsuits than any other defendant.
How it got here: District court twice dismissed as moot; the Ninth Circuit reversed both times; the Court took the case to resolve a split with the Fourth Circuit.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen originally from Eritrea, traveled to Sudan in 2009 and was told at the U.S. embassy he could not fly home because he had been placed on the No Fly List. FBI agents offered to remove him from the list if he agreed to spy on fellow members of his Portland mosque — he refused. He later alleges he was detained for 106 days in the United Arab Emirates at the FBI's behest, eventually ending up stranded in Sweden. He sued, claiming the listing violated his due process rights and was based on his religion, race, and national origin. In 2016, the government quietly removed him from the list with no explanation and asked the court to dismiss his suit.
The question before the Court
Can the government end a lawsuit over a No Fly List placement simply by quietly removing the person from the list, without explaining why they were added or promising not to put them back?
The Court's answer
No — the government cannot end this lawsuit simply by removing Fikre from the No Fly List without explaining why. Under the voluntary cessation doctrine, a defendant who stops the conduct it was sued over must prove that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start again. The government's declaration that Fikre would not be relisted "based on the currently available information" only spoke to his past behavior — it left completely open the question of whether the government might relist him if he did the same things again, like attending a particular mosque or refusing to serve as an FBI informant.
The Court also rejected the government's argument that years of post-delisting litigation and an assumption that Fikre had freely rejoined religious groups proved relisting was unlikely. A defendant cannot substitute guesses about a plaintiff's conduct for actual proof about its own future behavior. The ruling is expressly provisional: as the case moves forward and is tested against real evidence, the mootness question could be revisited.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People who believe they were wrongly placed on the No Fly List can keep their lawsuits alive even after the government removes them, as long as the government cannot explain away any reasonable chance of re-listing. This prevents the government from silencing accountability lawsuits by quietly reversing course, only to potentially resume the same conduct later.
What changes now
The case is sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings on the merits of Fikre's claims — including his allegations that the government violated his due process rights and listed him because of his religion and national origin. The Court stressed that its ruling is provisional; as new facts come out through litigation, the government may yet be able to prove the case is moot with more specific evidence about its future conduct.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the government actually violated Fikre's rights or whether placing him on the No Fly List was unlawful — those merits questions remain open on remand. Justice Alito also clarified the ruling does not require the government to disclose classified national-security information to prove mootness in the future.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Alito
Justice Alito joined the Court's opinion fully but wrote separately to flag a concern about classified information. He emphasized that the ruling should not be read to require the government to hand over sensitive No Fly List records — to the plaintiff, his lawyers, or even a court — to prove the case is moot. He noted that many district courts lack the infrastructure to handle classified materials, and that non-classified information or facts developed through discovery from the plaintiff may be enough to establish mootness in this and future cases.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Federal courts can only hear live 'cases or controversies' under Article III of the Constitution. A case becomes moot — and must be dismissed — when the plaintiff can no longer obtain any real relief from a court ruling.
- The voluntary cessation doctrine prevents defendants from gaming this rule: a defendant who simply stops the conduct it was sued over does not automatically end the case. The defendant must instead prove the challenged conduct cannot 'reasonably be expected to recur' — what the Court called a 'formidable burden.' This standard applies to the government just as it does to private parties.
- The government's declaration that Fikre 'will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information' only addressed whether his past actions would warrant relisting. It said nothing about what would happen if he engaged in the same conduct again — such as attending a particular mosque or refusing renewed overtures to become an informant — leaving open a reasonable possibility the government could relist him.
- The government's backup argument — that years had passed without relisting and that Fikre had presumably rejoined religious groups during that time — also failed. A defendant cannot fill gaps in proof about its own future conduct by speculating about what a plaintiff has or has not done in the interim.
- The Court also clarified that mootness does not require the government to admit its past conduct was wrong. What matters for mootness is what the defendant can prove about its own future behavior — not whether it repudiates the past. Because the government offered no such proof, it failed to meet its burden.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. (528 U. S. 167)
Reaffirmed as the governing standard: voluntary cessation moots a case only if recurrence is not reasonably expected.
Reaffirms Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (568 U. S. 85)
Reaffirmed that a defendant cannot automatically moot a case by simply suspending challenged conduct after being sued.