The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) attempt to circumvent legal scrutiny over the questionable placement and subsequent removal of an individual on its No Fly List deserves judicial skepticism, according to Hannah Mullen, a trial attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund.
At the crux of this circumstance is the case of FBI v. Yonas Fikre, wherein the aggrieved plaintiff, a law-abiding American Muslim, unjustly found himself on the FBI’s No Fly List, barring him from returning to the U.S. from an international business trip.
Several years following the initiation of a lawsuit by Yonas Fikre, the government abruptly removed him from the list without providing an explanation for their action and has since persistently requested the cessation of the legal pursuit. The government remains tight-lipped about the original rationale behind the plaintiff’s listing.
The issue under the Supreme Court’s review is whether the government can avert accountability for its actions by reversing them when faced with litigation. This question pertains to the judicial principle known as the voluntary cessation doctrine, which essentially asserts that a defendant government cannot dodge scrutiny over its illicit actions simply by retracting and promising not to repeat them. However, the government has to demonstrate in clear terms that a reversion to its old ways isn’t anticipated.
The Supreme Court hearing revealed an understanding amongst the justices of the fundamental unfairness imposed by the government. Several hypothetical and practical concerns were voiced, underlining the unclear procedures and secretive practices of listing and delisting process of the No Fly List.
As for Yonas Fikre, he initiated this lawsuit in 2013. His case emphasizes that an individual has the right to contest the government’s unconstitutional actions before a federal judge — a right that remains intact irrespective of any maneuvers the government might employ to discourage such legal challenges.
Reference: Bloomberg Law.