In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government convened a “No Fly List”. This registry includes individuals who are deemed to be a substantial risk to national security, preventing them from boarding commercial flights within U.S. airspace. Now, the Supreme Court is set to consider whether an Oregon man, who found himself on this list for over four years, can sue the FBI despite no longer being on the list.
As outlined in the case of FBI v. Fikre, the plaintiff, Yonas Fikre discovered in 2010 that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Fikre, a U.S. citizen of Eritrean heritage who resided in Sudan at that time, had been interrogated by FBI agents about his associations with a mosque in Oregon. The agents allegedly suggested that he could be removed from the list by becoming an FBI informant, which would allow him to return to the United States. Fikre declined the offer and found himself stranded overseas for an extended period.
His situation worsened during a trip to the United Arab Emirates, where he was arrested, detained, and allegedly tortured. Fikre was informed that his detention and interrogation had been requested by the FBI.
In 2013, Fikre initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging that his constitutional rights had been breached through his placement on the No Fly List. However, by 2019, a federal district judge declared his claims as moot because the government had removed him from the No Fly List and vowed not to place him back on it, “based on the currently available information.” His claims were later reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Supreme Court, which began considering the case in September, has been presented with arguments from both sides. Fikre contends that his case is not moot unless it’s absolutely clear that the conduct that prompted his lawsuit is incapable of recurring. The case is ongoing, and the final decision will set a significant precedent for similar situations in the future.
The detailed coverage of the case is available at SCOTUSblog.