FBI v. Fikre
Headline: Ruling keeps a man’s No Fly List challenge alive, rejecting the government’s claim that his 2016 removal automatically made the lawsuit moot and requiring stronger proof before dismissal.
Holding:
- Keeps lawsuits by former No Fly List members alive pending proof of non-relisting.
- Requires government to show it cannot reasonably resume the challenged conduct.
- Concurring opinion says classified evidence need not be routinely disclosed.
Summary
Background
A U.S. citizen, Yonas Fikre, says FBI agents told him in 2009 at a U.S. embassy that he was on the No Fly List and pressured him to act as an informant. He alleges later interrogation and detention abroad tied to those contacts, and he filed suit while in Sweden claiming he lacked notice, could not seek redress, and was targeted because of his religion, race, and national origin. The government removed him from the No Fly List in 2016 and argued that this made his lawsuit moot; lower courts reached conflicting results before the case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the government’s removal of Mr. Fikre from the No Fly List ended the lawsuit. The Court said it did not. Applying the long-standing rule that a defendant who voluntarily stops challenged conduct must prove it cannot “reasonably be expected to recur,” the Court found the government’s brief declaration inadequate. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held the government failed to meet its burden to show mootness, leaving the suit to continue for further fact-finding and review.
Real world impact
The decision means individuals removed from the No Fly List can continue legal challenges unless the government proves robustly it will not resume the contested conduct. The Court emphasized this ruling is provisional: as facts develop, the case’s status could change. The opinion also stressed the special national-security context and the need for careful handling of classified or sensitive evidence as the litigation moves forward.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, concurred in the judgment but clarified that the ruling does not require the government routinely to disclose classified information to prove mootness; non-classified evidence or plaintiff-supplied evidence may suffice.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?