The Supreme Court to Decide Lawsuit Against FBI Over No-Fly List
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a Muslim man from Oregon who is suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after his name was removed from the “no-fly list” but with no promise to keep it off. This controversial list, maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, contains the identities of known or suspected terrorists. Individuals on the list are prohibited from flying within, to, from, or over the United States.
Over the years, there have been complaints from Muslims who believe they were unfairly placed on the list, as well as from other Americans who were denied access to flights due to name similarities. The Association of Professional Flight Attendants and some lawmakers are advocating for a no-fly list for unruly passengers.
The case, FBI v. Fikre (court file 22-1178), dates back to 2010 when FBI agents met with Yonas Fikre, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Eritrean descent who had converted to Islam. The agents questioned him about alleged terrorist involvement and demanded that he become an informant for them in order to be allowed back into the United States.
In 2012, Mr. Fikre sought asylum in Sweden, claiming that he had been detained and tortured by the United Arab Emirates at the request of the U.S. government. In 2015, the TSA refused to remove his name from the no-fly list, citing a threat to civil aviation.
People waiting in line to go through Orlando International Airport MCO TSA security on a busy day. (Courtesy of Ed Perkins)
Mr. Fikre initiated a lawsuit against the FBI, alleging wrongful placement on the list, reputational harm, and violation of his right to travel. Initially, the agency removed his name from the list and then requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it was now moot. However, a federal district court disagreed and dismissed Mr. Fikre’s complaint.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed with the lower court, stating that the removal of Mr. Fikre’s name from the list did not render the lawsuit moot. The FBI had not admitted any wrongdoing or made any policy changes related to his case.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on a similar case regarding the no-fly list, allowing Muslims to sue FBI agents personally for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Trump administration argued against such lawsuits, claiming they would deter government officials from performing their duties.
Oral arguments for FBI v. Fikre have yet to be scheduled.
How does the lack of due process and potential for arbitrary additions and removals from the list affect individuals’ rights to liberty and the presumption of innocence?
Ck to 2013 when Yonas Fikre, a Muslim man from Oregon, discovered that his name was on the FBI’s no-fly list. The no-fly list is a controversial tool used by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center to identify and restrict the movements of known or suspected terrorists. Individuals on the list are prohibited from flying within, to, from, or over the United States.
While Fikre’s name was eventually removed from the list, there was no assurance that it would not be placed back on in the future. This lack of transparency and accountability prompted Fikre to file a lawsuit against the FBI, claiming violations of his constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the no-fly list and its impact on civil liberties. Over the years, there have been numerous complaints from Muslims who feel they have been unfairly targeted and placed on the list solely based on their religious beliefs. Additionally, there have been cases of mistaken identity, where innocent individuals with similar names to suspected terrorists have faced travel restrictions.
The lawsuit filed by Fikre raises important questions about the constitutionality of the no-fly list and the procedures employed by the FBI in maintaining it. Critics argue that the lack of due process and the potential for arbitrary additions and removals from the list violate individuals’ rights to liberty and the presumption of innocence. They argue that the government should provide clear evidence and adhere to stringent criteria before placing someone on the list or restricting their travel.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for national security and individual rights. It will determine the extent to which the government can curtail personal freedoms in the name of countering terrorism. The Supreme Court’s decision will also shed light on the need for stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms surrounding the no-fly list.
In recent years, there has been an increasing call for transparency and reform within the intelligence agencies responsible for maintaining the no-fly list. The case of Fikre is part of a broader movement seeking to address these concerns and ensure that the list is not used as a tool for discrimination or infringement on civil liberties.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the lawsuit against the FBI over the no-fly list is a critical juncture in the ongoing debate surrounding national security and individual rights. This case has the potential to shape the future of the no-fly list and determine the boundaries of governmental authority in the fight against terrorism. The outcome will not only impact the Muslim community but also serve as a precedent for how the government handles issues of due process and accountability in similar situations. As the case progresses, it is crucial to closely follow the arguments and evidence presented to gain a deeper understanding of the implications for civil liberties in the United States.
Now loading...