Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Delisting from No‑Fly List Moots Lawsuit

Summary

At oral argument in FBI v. Fikre, government attorneys told the court that a declaration and eight years off the no‑fly list make Jonas Fikre’s claims moot, while his counsel urged that nondisclosure of the reasons for listing prevents any reliable mootness finding and leaves procedural and declaratory remedies available.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled with whether removing a U.S. citizen from the federal no‑fly list renders his lawsuit moot, or whether secrecy about why he was listed prevents the government from meeting the heavy burden for voluntaril y ceased conduct.

Government counsel Mister Joshi told the justices that Jonas Fikre has not been on the list for eight years and that a public declaration tied to the delisting makes it “absolutely clear” he will not be returned based on currently available information. “There simply isn't a live case or controversy any longer,” Joshi said, arguing that voluntary cessation doctrine should bar continued review of a claim when the challenged conduct has ceased in a way that is unlikely to recur.

Opposing counsel, Mister Rubitz, told the justices that the declaration is too limited because it allows relisting based on new facts, offers no guarantee of notice or a hearing if relisting occurs, and — critically — provides no explanation of the reasons that led to Fikre’s original placement on the list. “He doesn't know why he was listed.…

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Delisting from No‑Fly List Moots Lawsuit

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading